construction! operations division chief, regulatory branch ...concord, massachusetts 01742-2751 ref:...

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICENORTHEAST REGIONOne Blackburn DriveGIouceste~ MA 01 930-2298

NOV 192003

Christine GodfreyChief, Regulatory BranchConstruction! Operations DivisionNew England District, Corps of Engineers696 Virginia RoadConcord, Massachusetts 01742-2751

Ref: Transmittal of Final Biological Opinion and Response to Comments on DraftFINER!2002!00936

Dear Ms. Godfrey:

Enclosed is a biological opinion (Opinion) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service(NOAA Fisheries) on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) proposed continuation andmodification of existing permits authorizing the installation and maintenance of net pens to raisefinfish off the coast of Maine. The NOAA Fisheries national Section 7 tracking number isF/NER!2002/00936.

The Opinion is submitted in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This Opinion concludes that the proposedcontinuation and modification of existing permits authorizing the installation and maintenance offish pens in the state of Maine (including incorporation of the special conditions to protect theGulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon) may adversely affect butis not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered Atlantic salmon within theDPS. Please note that any changes to the proposed action, including any changes to the specialconditions proposed to protect wild Atlantic salmon, may change the conclusion in this Opinionand would warrant further Section 7 consultation. No other federally-listed species is likely to beaffected by the proposed action.

While the ACOE’s proposed permit modifications do contain conditions for the protection ofwild Atlantic salmon, the incorporation of these conditions does not eliminate the potential forthe permitted activities to result in “take” of Atlantic salmon within the DPS; therefore, anIncidental Take Statement (ITS) has been issued with this Opinion. The anticipated incidentaltake from the existing aquaculture industry’s marine sites that were the subject of thisconsultation (42 sites) is the detection at weirs or traps of up to 21 escaped fish per year, basedon a three year rolling average, If the H’S is exceeded, consultation must be reinitiated. Tovalidate the H’S, the ACOE must implement the non-discretionary Reasonable and PrudentMeasures contained therein. Discretionary Conservation Recommendations are also includedwith this Opinion.

Reinitiation of this consultation is required if: (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in theiTS is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of these actions may affect listed species orcritical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) project activities aresubsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that was notconsidered in this Opinion; (4) significant changes to the proposed action are made that maychange the conclusion in this Opinion; or (5) a new species is listed or critical habitat designatedthat may be affected by the identified actions. If any one of the conditions requiring reinitiationof consultation is triggered, the ACOE should contact NOAA Fisheries. Alternatively, NOAAFisheries may provide written advice to the ACOE relative to the need to reinitiate consultation.Requests for reinitiation must be in writing and must contain sufficient information to record thenature of the change in the action or its effects and the rationale for any modifications.

Conclusion

NOAA Fisheries greatly appreciate your cooperation during this Section 7 consultation. If youhave any questions concerning this Opinion, please contact Jessica Anthony of my staff at (978)281-9328 ext 6532. We look forward to working with you in the future to ensure compliancewith permit conditions and protection of the Atlantic salmon DPS.

Sincerely,

Patricia A. KurkulRegional Administrator

cc:• Jessica Anthony - NOAA Fisheries

Rick Bennett - USFWSWende Mahaney - USFWS

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

Agency: Department of the Army, New England District, Corps of Engineers

Activity: Proposed modification of existing ACOE permits authorizing theinstallation and maintenance of aquaãulture fish pens within the State ofMaine

Conducted by: National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division,Northeast Region (F1NER12002100936) and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, New England Field Office [MEFO 02-001(F)]

Datelssued: Mav.~ti, ZooS

Approved by:

Patricia A. KurkulRegional AdministratorNortheast RegionNational Marine Fisheries Service

INTRODUCTION

This constitutes the biological opinion (opinion) of the National Marine Fisheries Service(NOAA Fisheries) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (collectively referred to asthe Services) on the continuation and proposed modification of existing U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (ACOE) permits previously issued under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act bf1899 (RHA Section 10) (33 U.S.C. §403), following the Services’ listing of the Gulf of Maine(GOM) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) as an endangeredspecies on November 17, 2000. These existing ACOE permits have authorized the installationand maintenance of fish pens within the State of Maine. While the Services agree that theproposed modifications to the existing permits will redupe the impact of the aquaculture industryon the listed Atlantic salmon, these modifications do not eliminate the impacts to listed salthonSince adverse effects to the listed salmon are still anticipated after implementation of theproposed permit amendments, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires formal consultationto: 1) ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listedsalmon in the wild; and 2) provide exemptions to the take prohibitions of Section 9 for take thatmay occur incidentally. This opinion is based on the following: (1) information provided in theACOE’s August 9, 2001 initiation letter and attachments in support of formal consultation underthe ESA; (2) previous consultations among the Services and the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) on the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program,including all documents and discussions that served as the basis for that consultation(USFWS[NOAA Fisheries 2001); (3) “Final Endangered Status for a Distinct PopulationSegment (DPS) of Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the Gulf of Maine” (65 FR69459, Nov. 17, 2000); (4) “Review of the Status of Anadromous Atlantic Salmon under the U.S.Endangered Species Act” [Anadromous Atlantic Salmon Biological Review Team (AASBRT)1999j; (5) field investigations; (6) conMnents received on the September 25, 2002 draft of thisopinion; and (7) other sources of information. A complete administrative record of thisconsultation will be maintained by the NOAA Fisheries office in Gloucester, Massachusetts. TheNOAA Fisheries national Section 7 tracking number is F/NERJ2002/00936, and the USFWS lognumber is MEFO 02-001(F).

BACKGROUND

The salmon aquaculture industry in Maine has been operating since the 1980s and currently iscomprised of 42 marine sites, located primarily in the downeast region of the Gulf of Maine, andoperated by several different companies. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899authorizes the ACOE to regulate structures and work within navigable waters of the U.S.; and assuch, marine aquaculture sites in Maine are required to obtain RHA Section 10 permits from theACOE. The sites in this opinion currently operate under previously issued RHA Section 10permits. Concern over the effect of the salmon aquaculture industry on wild salmon populationshas existed since the industry first began in Maine. TheServices discussed these concerns withthe ACOE and the industry prior to the listing of the GUM DPS in November 2000. Intensivediscussions have continued since the listing. The proposed permit modifications are the result ofthese joint discussions. Both the Services and the ACOE agreed that operation of the industryauthorized by the ACOB was likely adversely affecting the listed salmon population.Accordingly, in order to attain compliance with the ESA, the ACOE transmitted a letter to theServices requesting initiation of Section 7 consultation on August 9, 2001. The followingsection is a record of important meetings and correspondence that took place prior to and duringthis Section 7 consultation. The record clearly demonstrates extensive efforts on the part of theagencies and the industry to achieve consensus on permit conditions that: 1) protect the GUMDPS, and 2) maintain the economic viability of the aquaculture industry.

CONSULTATION HISTORY

November 16, 1999 - Services give presentation at a Federal Agency Mid-Level Managersmeeting to brief ACUE officials on the proposed listing of the Atlantic salmon as a federally-endangered species. Issues related to existing Atlantic salmon aquaculture facilities in Maineand associated adverse impacts on wild salmon are discussed.

Page 2 of 101

April 20, 2000 - Letter from Elizabeth Butler of Pierce Atwood, Attorneys at Law, representingthe Maine Aquaculture Association (MAA) and its member salmon companies to the ACOBregarding a proposed meeting in Maine.

May 15, 2000 - Meeting hosted by the ACOE with the aquaculture industry and the Services todiscuss the proposed listing of the Atlantic salmon as an endangered species and the possibleconsequences for existing ACOE permits authorizing finfish aquaculture facilities. The Servicesprovided a list of recommended permit conditions to provide protection for wild Atlantic salmon.

July 12, 2000 - Letter from the ACOE to the Services posing a number of questions related tothe Services’ May 15; 2000 recommendation for permit conditions. Included with the ACOEletter is a June 2, 2000 letter from the MAA commenting on the Services’ May 15, 2000recomn3endations.

September 11, 2000 - Letter from the Services to ~he ACOE responding to their July 12, 2000letter.

October 18, 2000 - Letter from the ACOE to the MAA attaching the Services’ September 11,2000 letter and requesting that discussions continue related to the modification of existingaquaculture permits.

November 2, 2000 - Meeting hosted by the ACOB with the aquaculture industry and theServices to continue discussions related to the proposed listing of the Atlantic salmon and thepossible consequences for existing ACOE permits authorizing finfish aquaculture facilities.

November 17, 2000 - The Services publish public notice of listing of the GOM DPS of Atlanticsalmon as an endangered species, effective December 18, 2000.

January 12, 2001 - The Services issue a final non-jeopardy opinion tO the EPA on the delegationof NPDES program to the State of Maine and its effects on the endangered Atlantic salmon.

March 12, 2001 - Letter from the Services to the ACOE requesting that the ACOE initiateformal Section 7 consultation for all existing permits authorizing finfish aquaculture facilities inMaine.

March 16, 2001 - The ACOE requests information from permittees in support of Section 7consultation.

March 28 and 29, 2001 - The ACOE hosts an Atlantic salmon aquaculture tagging workshopwith the aquaculture industry and state and federal agencies to explore options for markingaquaculture salmon.

March 29, 2001 - The ACOE hosts a meeting with the aquaculture industry and the Services todiscuss Section 7 consultation for existing facilities.

Page 3 of 101

April 12, 2001 - Letters from Heritage Salmon and Jom Vad to the ACOE in response to March16, 2001 request for information by the ACOE.

April 15, 2001 - Letter from Frank Ayres of Maine Salmon, Inc. to the ACOE in response toMarch 16, 2001 request for information by the ACOE.

ApriL 16, 2001 - Treat’s Island Fisheries, Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC, and IslandAquaculture Company send responses to March 16, 2001 request for information by the ACOE.

April 18, 2001 - Letters from International Aqua Foods USA, Inc., D.E. Salmon Inc., and StoltSea Farm Inc. to the ACOE in response to March 16, 2001 request for information by the ACOE.

May 2, 2001 - Letter from Sebastian Belle of the MAA to the ACOE providing results of anindustry survey on compliance with the MAA Code of Containment.

May 29, 2001 - Facsimile from Bany Calder to the ACOE including information on MaineCoast Nordic and L.R. Enteriirises Inc. marine sites.

August 29,2001 - Services receive August 9, 2001 letter from ACOB requesting initiation offormal Section 7 consultation for all previously authorized finfish aquaculture sites in the State ofMaine.

October 11, 2001 - Letter from Elizabeth Butler of Pierce Atwood (representing the perniitteesAtlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC and Stolt Sea Farm, Inc.) to the Services and the ACOEincluding a proposal for revised RHA Section 10 permit conditions that these companies wouldsupport.

October 12, 2001 - Letter from the Services to the ACOE acknowledging initiation letter andrequesting additional information before formal consultation can be initiated.

December 27, 2001 - Letter from the ACOE to the permittees requesting additional siteinformation for Section 7 consultation with the Services.

January 24, 2002 - Letter from Brick Swanson to the ACOE in response to December 27, 2001request.

February 28, 2002 - Letter from Heritage Salmon to the ACOE in response to December 27,2001 request.

March 18, 2002 - Letter from David Peterson of Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC to the ACOEproviding additional information in response to December 27, 2001 request.

Page4of 101

March 21, 2002 - Letter from Treat’s Island Fisheries to the ACOE providing additionalinformation in response to December 27, 2001 request.

March 28, 2002 - Letters from Island Aquaculture Company, DE Salmon Company, Stolt SeaFarm Inc., and International Aqua Foods USA, Inc. providing information in response toDecember 27, 2001 request.

April 3, 2002 - Letter from Maine Salmon, Inc. to the ACOE providing information in responseto December 27, 2001 request. Facsimile to the ACOE from Maine Coast Nordic and L.R.Enterprises, Inc. including information on marine sites.

April 9, 2002 - Meeting hosted by the EPA and the Maine Department of EnvironmentalProtection (IvIEDEP) to discuss the aquaculture industry and Maine Pollution DischargeElimination System (IvIPDES) permits, attended by state and federal regulatory agencies andNon-Governmental Organizations.

April 12, 2002 - Letter from the Services to the ACOE, acknowledging submission of additionalinformation and initiating formal consultation. The Services’ opinion is due to the ACOE byAugust 18, 2002.

May 14, 2002 - Meeting in Falmouth, Maine with the Services, the ACOE and Atlantic Salmonof Maine, LLC to discuss broodstock and genetics issues.

June 10, 2002 - Letter from David Peterson of Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC to the Servicesregarding the May 14, 2002 meeting.

June 28, 2002 - Letter from the Services to David Peterson of Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC,in response to Mr. Peterson’s June 10, 2002 letter.

July 2, 2602 - Letter to the Services from Stolt Sea Farm~ Inc. endorsing the June 10, 2002 letterfrom Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC.

August 6, 2002 - Meeting with the Services, Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC, and Stolt SeaFarm, Inc. to continue discussion of broodstock and genetics issues.

August 15, 2002 - Letter from the Services to the ACOE requesting a 60-day extension untilOctober 17, 2002 to complete the opinion.

August 20, 2002 - Letter from ACOE to the Services approving a time extension until October17, 2002.

August 22, 2002 - Letter from the Services to David Peterson including a modified version ofthe Atlantic salmon microsatellite analysis protocol.

Page5of 101

September 20, 2002 - Letter from the Services to Sebastian Belle of the MAA reiterating theposition of the Services in regard to marking Atlantic salmon that are commercially reared inmarine cages.

September 25, 2002 - Draft opinion sent to the ACOE from the Services. Comments due backby October 4, 2Q02.

October 7, 2002 - Draft opinion sent from the ACOE to the MAA for distribution to thepermittees. Comments due back to the ACOE by October 17, 2002.

October 10, 2002 - Letter from Sebastian Belle of the MAA to the Services requesting a clearindication of acceptable marking techniques.

October 17, 2002 - Letter from the Services to Sebastian Belle of the MAA responding to theOctober 10, 2002 request.

October 25, 2002 - Letter from Atlantic Salmon of Maine to the ACOE requesting an additional45 days to comment on the draft opinion.

October 28, 2002 - Meeting with the ACOE, the Services, and IVIEDEP to discuss comments onthe draft opinion.

October 29, 2002 - Email from the ACOE to the MAA allowing an extension of time for~.bomments on the draft opinion. Comments from the industry to the ACOE are due by November8, 2002.

November 8, 2002 .~. Letter from Heritage Salmon, Inc. to the ACOB including comments on thedraft opinion.

November 13, 2002 - Letter from Elizabeth Butler of Pierce Atwood representing the permittees(Atlantic Salmon of Maine; Stolt Sea Farm, Inc.; Island Aquaculture Company, Inc.; Treat’sIsland Fisheries, Inc.; International Aqua Foods, USA, Inc.; and D.E. Salmon, Inc.) to the ACOErequesting extension of time for comments, and including preliminary comments on the draftopinion.

December 3, 2002 - Letter from the ACOE to the Services commenting on the draft opinion, andincluding comment letters from the MAA, the Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine, ElizabethButler, and Heritage Salmon, Inc.

January 27, 2003 - Meeting with the ACOE, the Services, Atlantic Salmon of Maine, Stolt SeaFarm, Inc., and Maine Senator Susan Collins’ staff to discuss the draft opinion.

Page 6 of 101

January 31, 2003 - Letter from Elizabeth Butler (attorney representing Atlantic Salmon ofMaine, LLC and Stolt Sea Farm, Inc.) to Richard Bennett, USFWS, and Chris Mantzaris, NOAAFisheries, offering suggested alternative language for the proposed ACOE special conditionregarding genetic strain.

February 21, 2003 - Letter from Elizabeth Butler (attorney representing Atlantic Salmon ofMaine, LLC and Stolt Sea Farm, Inc.) to Richard Bennett, USFWS, offering additionalcommeEnts on the draft opinion and requesting another meeting with the Services to discusspermit conditions.

March 21, 2003 - Letter from Richard Bennett, USFWS, to Senator Susan Collins providinginformation in response to issues raised at the January 27, 2003 meeting.

March 28, 2003 - Request from Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC to the Services pursuant to theData Quality Act regarding the draft opinion.

March 31, 2003 - Letter from the ACOE to the Services requesting a modification in the pentype and distribution at two existing sites (Deep Cove and Birch Point) operated by HeritageSalmon in Cobscook Bay.

April 1, 2003 - The Services meet with the ACOB to discuss the draft opinion.

April 4, 2003 - Email from Mary Colligan (NOAA Fisheries) to Jay Clement (ACOE) inresponse to the March 31, 2003 request.

April 18, 2003 — Letter from the ACOE to Heritage Salmon notifying Heritage Salmon thatpermit numbers ME-EAPT-87009-R-89 and ME-EAPT-900228-R-90 are amended to authorizereplacement of the existing aging and deteriorated pens at both sites with new pens.

May 2, 2003 — Meeting in Falmouth, Maine with the Services and the ACOE to discuss the draftopinion.

May 22, 2003 — Meeting in Concord, New Hampshire with Services and the ACOE to discussthe draft opinion.

Page7of 101

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The ACOB has proposed continuation of existing ACOE permits previously issued to numerousfinfish aquaculture farms in the State of Maine under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Actof 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403), with modifications. These existing ACOE permits have authorizedthe installation and maintenance of finfish aquaculture pens within Maine. Subsequent to theACOB issuance of these permits, the Services listed the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon as anendangered species pursuant to Section 4 of the ESA. SectiOn 7(a)(2) of the ESA requiresfederal agencies to consult with the Services to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, orcarry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Accordingly, theACOB initiated formal consultation under Section 7 to ensure compliance with the ESA. Thefollowing sections describe the nature and extent of the various aquaculture activities authorizedunder the current RHA Section 10 permits, followed by descriptions of the ACOB specialconditions that will be required through permit modifications.

The finfish aquaculture industry in Maine is currently composed of 42 sites, which encompassabout 750 acres of water. Most cage (pen) sites (26) are located in the Cobscook Bay area, nearthe Maine-New Brunswick border (Baum 2001) (see Figures 1-5 and Table 1). The Atlanticsalmon is the primary species of finfish under cultivation, with rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) a distant second; other species reared (experimentally) in recent years include cod,haddock, flounder, pollock, and chart In January 2001, there were 570 cages deployed in Mainecoastal waters. The most commonly,used cages are 24 x 24 meters in size and are connected bysteel walkways, typically in groups of 8 to 20 cages. Additionally, 70- to 120-meter-circumference cages (Polar Cirkals~) are used exterisively in the State of Maine (Baum 2001).

The annual total production of farmed Atlantic salmon in Maine increased from 20 metric tons(mt) in 1984 to more than 16,400 mt (>36 million pounds) in 2000 (Baum 2001). Since 2000,annual production of Atlantic salmon in Maine has decreased 28% to 26 million pounds in 2001(Belle, 11/7/02). In 2002, the industry produced 15 million pounds. In Maine, pen-rearing ofsalmon to harvestable size requires approximately 18 months, yielding an average standing cropof about ten million salmon in two-year classes. Most salmon are harvested from Octoberthrough March, although some salmon are harvested throughout the year.

Page 8 of 101

Existing Aquaculture Sites - KEY

I~4t.4 ~

ASMI CI

ASMI DI

TIFI TW1/TW2

IACO BI~cc*c~~’-

IACO TC:::S$C3~.5:c!~c~$$_.,Z~Z2$

SFML AS/RN

DESC SNI

IAFI HP

:.:—~:—:.—:.:—:.:.:.:.:._.:.:—:.:.~: :.: ::.:,:.:.:,:.:

IAFI CL

CONA Bc..~

CONA CP:-x-:-x-:-x-x•x~K•x€>.—4x•:-x•~x•~x

BPFI BE

LAEN BSF OIZt,i ~~

LREN OS

MCNB SCN

Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLCA41~.k~ocI~-~. ~~ •

Atlantic salmon of Maine, LLC~t:~eatTreats Island Fisheries, Inc.~1~thats Y’~ ~

Island Aquaculture CorpI~1Q Jc~..w47S~wtS ~

Island Aquaculture Corp

Stolt Sea Farm, Inc.

D.E. Salmon, ma.. ~LIE 5Salmon, ma

International Aqua Foods, USA:Tht~nati~.hai~M:l~n ~~Eo~:j~J5A%E~:International Aqua Foods, USA

HeritageI~a~ ;E:32$E33~~3~1,i2113.~333

Heritageax•:4~t•F~.~34w

Heritage

L.A. Enterprises, Inc..,~

L.R. Enterprises, Inc.

Maine Coast Nordic

Table 1

B5~~E~::

Cross Island S

B7

z~.-;~ •nl.~n~4 -:

Dyer Island

MECRIS872004RB9

C2,C3 Treats Island

199500257

t~$~Ø~Dl

~

MEW-AP

~;—≥.

Black Island

MEEAPT87I 826R90

t~~;z-;:oz.

D3~iQt

199902033

Toothacker Cove

E2

Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC

1c~~ :. :...?~:3icI1t~

199300273

~;4nt~Rodgers Island

Aab..~a ~~ ~L..., ,-‘ 1 L r.

F2$&w~g~k;su~


Sove Pt. E. c.. fl%*~

MEWLUB89OI 96R90

SIW~m~~e


Harris Cove:~2

MEEAPT89OI 95R90

Ii~F~ft~:Head


54

199500887

~~frff~~ve

:!i~3~E ti~

,Tl~3~c%~t~

Cooper Island Ledge


H2

~~tp:t~~ ~Al Hardwood Island 199203123 ... -, TISF HT Acadia AqUaculture Acadia AquacultureA2 ~‘ ~c D~,ha?n’~Gae i ~ ?t$9BG38S8~ q~ ~ ~ ~AGAD DS~ ~c’ad~a’Aqua~uItureo 2 S Acad gmrndiIture~~ ~\‘

Bl Stone Island 199802925 ASMI ST Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC92)5 7 Ut~byJsland~’ Y ~‘ I S9~~47S”” ,~‘-~‘ ~< c’ ~> ‘ASMI LI 0 Atttntratalrnop of Majns LLG Aani~aSa1mo~i atMarnt LLbBa Starboard Island 199200040R92 ASMI II Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC•--~-~.:,-:~>x -~ .t:5cS-:3:~3- .t3.:::.:...~ .53-~~ 3:;S—4-:c3:c3:-~ .‘ .3.::::’ ox -:*-: t:~:. 1: .x°:o5: ..o-3-.c~. :,:bx:~c ,c ~ c.~s~c S-:-so.~:o~o:w. ~BA Ornsc kland 1* 1 S~t~*fl~ A~MI flP A.thflhf’ c~Irtinn nf’tS~ini~ I I fl Aflaiitw ~atmnn nf Ma’in.~ El C

~~ :A1:.40x.co

*~.:dØ:c$~3n

~ . L~EE~~i&~n~ o%.~40x.~S.3-S ~&E ~ :-~~≠± ~~ ~: ~

~E1:~ ~~~~~

~

~i~3acc4-:33 S?~:~43~~’)k3Wc1 i’~cccc3x1c ‘ L~~*cc~” .4lJ~4,.40j.oSooooq. - c~c-csi3s$l.x1i~ ?.$3x?.t:c*: rxxc~c~~

t~1~33134114 ~:~l~.* 13*cS3~:*33s3131wtc,.4&J -,‘t~~x 1-y!a’i3*~ .~ :..~~i31i ~4r~~.ccxx&-3&--xcccc33cc~ rfg ~~~

L4 Little River N 199300240 MCNC CN Maine Coast Nordic Maine Coast Nordic~S” ≥ Sp’ecIacf~ island I1O$~5flS2 ° -‘ ç’ ~<MCt4f SI’ ~ M&uwiQoast Nardie [‘ MaineGoaat NprdtMl Sheepscott River 199802560 PIER SR M. Pierce Associates, Inc. M. Pierce Associates, Inc.

Broad Cove

,$*~,*~4S~*4kS,r4~JW k~$:~ .!.:~~3s::::~1:-

~3≤~333133~.1

MEEAPT89OI 94R89

Stolt Sea Farm, Delaware Corp

H4,H5

:.... 3~O_._ -SL-:-c..... .000tOOj:0S00:00.0S’

I:3~~, *?e,2Efa ~%:33j3%:731311-33%p

t~oxaox.

Comstock Point:+:-~.‘~K-:-:-:-:0:-:-:

MEEAPT?72009R89

Stolt Sea Farm. Delaware Corp

Ii

‘esQ— ,f3cl.~ 3c3)lx:x1)*31311631*33

IwF4~.:4—-~J3Mnt~qI~1:3$31333333--3

~5\ .3ct:-’-::z:cccc~ t::s~~5. .:3$:*:S:cc.Stolt Sea F~. OeFawa~e Oo~

~F.~X*~0X0~0X0o

Birch Point:Si4~ZZ.Z$Z

MEEAPT89O1 99R90

Stolt Sea Farm, Canadian Corp

KI

;~j3:ç~ -~E~pti~-

~it~ A C.~

~te~E33.:EE~E53:

:4.v.c~4~n;.:0,t~,,I.,;.x4oz<0,:.x.:.x.o:.::.

Birch Point

—.:::.:.:.:.:.: •.::.:.:.:.:.•.:.:

MEEAPT900228R9O

:+.&,

S~<W :ltDa~

K3

Stolt Sea Farm, Canadian Corp

~~oo0

3k~I0A . •~~.~L-~s+:•:-x<-x•.o

Cove Pointt~*~3c~%

MEEAPT900277R9O

Heritage

L2

~Acc.Kc

~mIe~ensffla:~.3~.E

~0)s~-:0:0-.-....

MEAPTR9O

Sand Cove North

Heritage

199600240

~__~_<1 — I 1

Gary Small•t:....:O..r..:p&:.:~~._

LA Enterprises

LR Enterprises~_~4 .E.~ ~

Maine Coast Nordic

Figure 1

obscot Bay

Q

C/V

Islan&

Figure 2

Pleasa Aquaculture S

Dyer~~4d

Page 11 of 98

ias Bay Aquaculture Sites

Lne

Figure 3

Page 12 of 98

Figure 4Pagel3of98

2’!CoC-‘CDC,’

Cl)7

-o0C,0

CD-C

CD

CcCD

0-4’

CD0z

Summary of Existing ACOE RITA Section 10 Permits by Company:

A. Acadia Aquaculture, Inc.

A1.Hardwood Island, Blue Hill Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199203123, Maine Department ofMarine Resources (DMR) Site ID: TISF lIT)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, blue mussels• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon, blue mussels, rainbow trout (2000)• Atlantic Salmon Strains: The only strains intended for use are St. John and

Penobscot River strains. All smolts will be purchased through Heritage Salmon.• Gear Type: Install and maintain 10 floating fish pens within a 500’ x 2800’ area

with an Akvamarina 1000 Feed Barge System (30’ x 60’). Two 30’ x 30’ musselbarges are located on the northern end of the site. Each pen will measureapproximately 24 meters and will be organized into a single pen system measuringapproximately 56 x 132 meters. The pens will be bottom-moored by anchors.Gear is a new steel system designed by Marine Construction. Four 12-meter pensare used to hold the broodstock.

• Additional Information: This site will be used for site rotation and fallowing.Rainbow trout raised in 2000 were part of a research project with AquabioProduct Sciences; all trout were destroyed that fall.

A2. Dunham’s Cove, Blue Hill Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199803638, DMR Site Identifier:ACADDB)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated/Atlantic Salmon Strains: None at this time• Gear Type: None at this time• Additional Information: A NPDES permit for this site was issued by the EPA on

February 21, 2002. The DMR lease has been surrendered, so legally there is nostate authorization to rear salmon or place structures on this site.

B. Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC

Bi. Stone Island, Machias Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199802925, DMR ID: ASMI ST)• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Penobscot, St. John and imported gametes from

Icelandic and Norwegian sources, including Mowi, Landcatch, and Stofinfiskurhatcheries. All the fish are reported F6 from the river of origin.

• Gear Type: Up to 16 floating fish pens are permitted within a 867’x 503’rectangular area. Individual pens will measure approximately 80’ x 80’ and will beconnected to form a system measuring approximately 680’ x 170’. All pens willbe bottom-moored by 2000-pound granite blocks or anchors.

• Additional Information: Has special conditions on ACOE permit from an ESASection 7 consultation for effects on the bald eagle, a threatened species. The

Page 15 of 101

USFWS issued a biological opinion for this site on July 17, 1997, which was thenmodified on September 18, 1998 and again on April 30, 2003.

B2. Libby Island, Machias Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199601473, DMR Site ID: ASMI Li)• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: same as B 1• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as B1• Gear Type: Up to 84 floating fish pens are permitted within a 1600’ x 544’

rectangular area. The pens will consist of thirty 70’ diameter and six 50’ diametercircular pens and forty-eight 50’ x 50’ square steel pens organized into four groupsof 12 pens each. The square pens will be connected together to form a system110’ x 300’. All pens will be bottom-moored by 2000-pound mooring blocks.The site will be serviced by a 40’ x 90’ work barge which supports a building forfeed and equipment storage and employee shelter.

B3. Starboard Island, Macbias Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199200040R92, DMR ID ASMIII)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: same as B 1• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as B1• Gear Type: Up to 64 floating fish pens are permitted within a polygon-shaped

area measuring 40 acres. The pens will consist of either a total of 44 individuallymoored 70-foot-diameter circular pens or twenty-four 50’ x 50’ pens linkedtogether around a central 10-foot-wide catwalk. The pen systems will measureapproximately 500’x 110’. Individual pens and pen systems will be moored by2000-pound granite blocks. The pens will be installed in two phases: the two 20-pen systems or alternatively 20 circular pens during the first phase, the remaining24 cirbular pens during the second phase. The site will be serviced by a 40’x 90’work barge which supports a building for feed and equipment storage andemployee shelter.

B4. Cross Island North, Macbias Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199301092, DIVIR Site ID:ASMI C12)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: same as B 1• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as Bi• Gear Type: Up to 96 floating fish pens are permitted within a quadrilateral area

with sides measuring 1099’ x 1000’ x 1317’ x 1023’. The pens will be organized insix groups of 16 pens each, measuring approximately 400’ x 110’. In each groupthe pens will be linked together around a central 400’ x 10’ catwalk. All pens willbe bottom-moored by 2000-pound granite or concrete blocks.

B5. Cross Island South, Machias Bay (ACOE P~rmit No: MB-cRIS-872004-R-89, DMRID: ASMI CI)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon

Page 16 of 101

• Species Cultivated: same as B 1• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as B1• Gear Type: Up to 32 floating fish pens are permitted within a 940’ x 926’

rectangular area. Individual pens will measure approximately 80’ x 80’ and will beconnected together to form two, 16-pen systems, each measuring approximately700’ x 190’. Alternatively, the same number of circular pens will be installed onsite. The circular pens.would measure approximately 90’ in diameter and will beconnected together to form two, 16-pen clusters, each measuring approximately700’ x 190’. All pens will be bottom-moored by 2000-pound granite blocks oranchors and will be serviced by up to two, 50’ x 120’ work barges which support abuilding for feed and equipment storage and employee shelter. At the northwestend of each of the pen clusters, two floating breakwaters will be installed. Thebreakwaters will consist of tires threaded into two-foot-diameter PVC pipe andwill measure approximately 200’ in length. They will be installed parallel withone another and secured in the same way as the net pens.

B6. Flint Island, Machias Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199402554, DMR Site ID: ASMI UI)• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Specks Cultivated: same as B1• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as B1• Gear Type: Up to 28 floating fish pens are permitted within a 1000’ x 435’

rectangular area. Each pen will measure approximately 50’ x 50’ and will beconnected together to form two, 14-pen systems, each measuring approximately110’ x 350’. Alternatively, during the first year, up to 16, 70-foot-diametercircular pens will be used. All pens will be bottom-moored by 2000-poundgranite blocks and will be serviced by a 40’ x 90’ work barge’ that supports abuilding for feed and equipment storage and employee shelter.

B7. Dyer Island, Machias Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199500257, DMR Site ID: ASMI Dl)• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: same as B 1• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as B1• Gear Type: Up to 56 floating fish pens are permitted within a 1000’ x 871’

rectangular area. Each pen will measure approximately 50’ x 50’ and will beconnected together to form four, 14-pen systems, each measuring approximately110 x 350’. Alternatively, up to 32, 70-foot-diameter circular pens will be used.All pens will be bottom-moored by 2000-pound granite blocks and will beserviced by a 40’ x 90’ work barge that supports a building for feed and equipmentstorage and employee shelter.

Page 17 of 101

C. Treat’s Island Fisheries, Inc. (Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC)

Cl. Comstock Point 5 and Comstock Point 10, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: MEEAPT-890197-R-90, DMR Site ID: TIE CC1ICC2)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, Atlantic halibut, flounder,pollock, sea scallops, and clams

• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Smolts came from Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC• Gear Type: Ten 72-foot-diameter circular pens and a 20’ x 50’ feed bargeare

permitted. The circular pens will be bottom-moored by 4000- to 8000-poundgranite blocks. Comstock 5 spans an area of 400’ x 500’, and Comstock 10 anareaof400’x 1120’.

C2. Treat Island, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-EAPT-871826-R-90 (Combinedwith site C3), DMR Site ID: TIE TW1)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, Atlantic halibut, red algaenori

• Speëies Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Smolts come from Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC• Gear Type: Install and maintain twenty 72-foot-diameter circular pens and a 40’ x

50’ feed barge. The circular pens will be bottom-moored by 4000- to 8000-poundgranite blocks. An 800’ x 772’ area is covered at this site.

C3. Gull Rock, Cobscook Bay (ACQE Permit No: ME-EAPT-871826-R-90 (Combinedwith site C2), DMR Site ID: TIE TW2)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Smolt come fromAtlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC• Gear Type: Same as Treat Island (C2) above

C4. Johnson Cove, Cobscook Bay (ACOB Permit No: ME-EAPT-871825-R-89, DMRSite ID: TIFIJC)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, halibut, sea scallops, andclams

• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Smolt come from Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC• Gear Type: Up to 64 floating fish pens and/or scallop cages are permitted within a

900’ x 500’ area. The pens and/or cages will be organized in two groups,connected by two 20’ x 20’ floats, each group consisting of 32 pens and measuringapproximately 700’ x 90’. In each group the pens will be linked around a central700’ x 6’ catwalk. All pens will be bottom-moored by 3000-pound granite blocks.

Pagel8of 101

IL Island Aquaculture Corp. (Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLC)

Dl. Black Island, Blue Hill Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199902033, DMR Site ID: TACO Bi)• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, Atlantic cod, Atlantic halibut, haddock,

blue mussels• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Penobscot, St. John hybrids crossed with descendants

of European lines. Also have some Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery• Penobscot descendants in the 2000 generation

• Gear Type: Up to 18 floating fish pens are permitted within a 1450’ x 450’rectangular area. Individual pens will measure approximately 92’ x 92’ and will beconnected to form a system measuring approximately 180’ x 780’. Alternatively, aten-pen system (180’ x 436’) and an eight-pen system (180’ x 780) will beinstalled. All pens will be bottom-moored by 6000-pound mooring blocks. Thesite will be serviced by a 30’ x 60’ work barge.

• Additional Information: Currently examining the feasibility of mussel culture asa small-scale polyculture experiment.

D2. Harbor Island (Scrag Island), Blue Hill Bay (ACOE Permit No: 1991-00001-R-91,DMR Site ID: TACO HS)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, Atlantic cod, and haddock• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as Dl• Gear Type: Up to 12 floating fish pens are permitted within a hexagonal area with

sides measuring approximately 360’x 320’x 1473’x 381’x 1574’x 413’. Thepens are independently moored by a two-point system and are approximatelycircular, measuring 76’ in diameter, the outer floatation ring also providing anaccess walkway. Each pen will be secured individually by 6000-pound concreteblocks. The fish pens will be serviced by a 20.5~ x 44’ work barge which supportsa 10’ x 8’ building for equipment, feed storage, and employee shelter.

D3. Toothacher Cove, Blue Hill Bay (ACOE Permit No: 1993-00273, DMR Site ID:TACO TC)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic cod, Atlantic salmon, Donaldson sea trout, haddock• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as Dl• Gear Type: Up to 18 floating fish pens are permitted within a 1254’ x 627’

rectangular area. The pens will consist of up to 12, 54-foot-diameter and up to six75-foot-diameter circular floating pens moored in two parallel rows of nine penseach, running east to west within the site. The site will be serviced by a 40’ x20.5’ work barge that supports a building for feed and equipment storage andemployee shelter.

Page 19 of 101

E. Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. (Delaware Corporation)

El. Johnson Bay, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: 1994-00974, DMR Site ID: 5Th/IL183)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, Atlantic cod, haddock, Atlantic halibut• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: 2001 fish descended from St. John and Penobscot point

of origin. No fish were stocked in 2000. 1999 fish descended from St. John andLandcatch point of origin, as well as Penobscot point of origin. 1998 and allprevious year’s fish were descended from St. John point of origin.

• Gear Type: Up to eighteen 72-foot-diameter pens and a20’ x 40’ feed barge arepermitted. The circular pens will be bottom-moored by 4000-pound graniteblocks. Planned upgrade options consistent with the permitted area include: 10-90 meter circular pens of eight 100-meter circular pens.

E2. Rogers Island North and South, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-WLUB890196-R-90 and 199701558, DMR Site ID: SFML RN/RS)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as El• Gear Type: Up to 40, 15-meter square steel pens permitted. Both sites contain 12,

70-meter polar circle pens and a 20’ x 40’ support barge with feed building in a1000’ x 425’ area. All pens will be bottom-moored by 4000-pound granite blocks.

F. D.E. Salmon, Inc. (Stolt Sea Farm, Inc., Delaware Corporation)

Fl. Gove Point West, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: 1995-01174, DMR Site ID:DESC GN2)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, sea urchins, giant sea scallops• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: D.E. Salmon, Inc. grows fish that have several points of

origin, or are crosses among those lines, including St. John and Penobscot strain(originally obtained from the federal hatcheries in Maine), as well as fishdescended from imported gametes from the Landcatch hatchery. Smolts are alsopurchased from time to time from other companies, and it is possible that thoselines might contain some genetic material from fish descended from gametes fromIceland or Norwegian hatcheries.

• Gear Type: Up to 16 floating fish pens are permitted within a 800’ x 545’rectangular area. Each pen will measure 15 meters and will be connected to forma 16-pen system measuring approximately 110’ x 404’. All pens are bottom-moored by anchors or mooring stones. A 40’ work boat provides feed andequipment storage and employee shelter.

• Additional Information: No fish stocked in 2000 and 2001.

Page 20 of 101

F2. Gove Point East, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-EAPT-890195-R-90, DMRSiteID:DESCGN1)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, sea urchins, giant sea scallops• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as Fl• Gear Type: Up to 20 floating fish pens are permitted within a 660’ x 660’ area.

The pens are organized into two groups, consisting of ten 50-meter pens andmeasuring approximately 250’ x 112’. The pens are linked together by a central250’ x 12’ catwalk with an attached 14’ x 16’ work float. A 10’ x 8’ x 8’ buildingon the float stores feed, equipment, and provides emplbyee shelter. The pens arebottom-moored by 4000-pound granite blocks. Planned future amendments,consistent with the present square footage, sought for include one group of eight24-meter square steel pens.

• Additionalinformation: No fish stocked in 2000 and 2001.

P3. East Johnson Bay, Cobscook Bay ACOE Permit No: 1993-00051, DMR Site ID:DESCLU)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as Fl• Gear Type: This site contains eight 70-meter polar circles in a 600’x 726’ area,

bottom-moored by 4900-pound granite blocks. There is also an on-site supportbarge witha building that is similar to other finfish aquaculture industries.

G. International Aqua Foods USA, Inc. (Stolt Sea Farm Inc., Canadian Corporation)

01. Harris Cove, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: 1995-00887, DMR Site ID: IAN HP)• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, Donaldson trout, Atlantic cod, haddock,

Atlantic halibut• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Fish stocked in 2000 were descendants from Penobscot,

St. John, and Landcatch point of origin and some were Landcatchflcelandiccrosses.

• Gear Type: Up to 40 floating fish pens within a rectangular shaped 800’ x 545’area are permitted. The existing site configuration includes 24, 15-meter squaresteel pens. A planned upgrade would include 12, 24-meter square steel pens inthe same permitted area. All pens will be bottom-moored by 2500-pound anchorsand weir stakes and will be serviced by a 40’ x 16’ work barge which will providefeed and equipment storage and employee shelter.

02. Kendall Head South, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: 1993-01738, DMR Site ID:IANJK)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, Atlantic halibut• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same.as 01

Page 21 of 101

• Gear Type: Up to 32 floating fish pens within a 800’ x 1200’ rectangular area arepermitted. The existing pen configuration consists of four 24-meter square steelpens, eight 15-meter square steel pens, six 12-meter square steel pens, and 16, 70-meter polar circles. The pens will be secured by a combination of timber pilings,2500-pound danforth anchors, and 6000-pound concrete blocks. A 30’ x 16’ workbarge will be secured to the pens and will support a 10’ x 16’ building for feed andequipment storage and employee shelter.

03. Prince Cove, Cobscook Bay (ACOB Permit No: ME-EAPT-882088-R-89, DMR SiteID:L4FIPC)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, halibut• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: same as 01• Gear Type: Up to 52 floating fish pens within a 1734’ x666’ area are permitted.

The existing pen configuration within this area is 12, 24-meter steel pens andeight 15-meter square steel pens.

04. Cooper Island Ledge, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-EAPT-890194-R-89,DMR Site ID: IAN CL)

• Species Authorized: Rainbow trout, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic halibut, abalone,blue mussels, European and American oysters, sea scallops, bay scallops, hard andsoft shelled clams, seaweed, red algae, and fan worms

• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: 1999 fish descended from Penobscot and St. John

points of origin, as well as crosses among Penobscot, Landcatch, and Icelandicpoint of origin.

• Gear Type: Up to 36 floating fish pens within a rectangular area measuringapproximately 735’x 590’ are permitted. The existing site configuration includessix 24-meter square steel pens and 12, 15-meter square steel pens covering a 590’x 735’ area. The applicant will also install and maintain twp 14-foot-diameterfloating dulse hoops, a bottom cage shellfish nursery consisting of nine vertical10’ x 2’ x 12’ scallop grow out systems and bottom-secured grown out bags ofsoftshell clams. The nursery will occupy a 100’ x 300’ section in the southwestcorner of the site. There is also a support barge with a building on site.

• Additional Information: Not stocked in 2001.

H. Heritage Salmon

Hi: South Bay, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: MB-EAPT-890198-R-90, DMR SiteID: CONA SB)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Penobscot and St. John strains• Gear Type: This site contains one 1 8-cage system and one ten-cage system

covering a 1875’x 725’ area.

Page22of 101

H2. Broad Cove, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-EAPT-872009-R-89 (combinedwith Deep Cove Site (H3) below), DMR Site ID: CONA BC)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Penobscot and St. John strains• Gear Type: This site contains two ten-cage systems in a 1089’ x 2000’ area.

H3. Deep Cove, Cobscoolc Bay (ACOB Permit No: MB-EAPT-872009-R-89, DMR SiteID: CONA DC)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Penobscot and St. John strains• Gear Type: This site contains 15, 100-meter polar circles covering an area of

1100’ x 990’. On February 19, 2003, the permittee requested permission from theACOE to modify the pen type and distribution; the new proposal is for 60, 15-•meter steel cages, grouped in three 20-cage systems.

H4. Comstock Point I, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: IvIE-EAPT-890199-R-90(combined with site H5 below), DIvIR Site ID: CONA CP1)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Penobscot and St. John strains• Gear Type: This site (combined With the site H5 below) contains two systeths,

each containing 20, 15-meter cages covering a 840’ x 520’ area.

H5. Comstock Point II, Cobscook Bay (ACOB Permit No: ME-EAPT-890199-R-90,DMR Site ID: CONA CP2)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Penobscot and St. John strains• Gear Type: This site (combined with the site H4 above) contains two systems,

each containing 20, 15-meter cages covering an 840’ x 520’area.

H6. Goose Island, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-EAPT-893404-R-90, DMR SiteID: CONAGI)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, Atlantic halibut, soft-shelledclams and scallops, European oysters

• Species Cultivated: Not currently operating• Gear Type: Install and maintain up to 72 floating fish pens within a 1667’ x 600’

rectangular area.

Page 23 of 101

I. Birch Point Fisheries

Ii. Birch Point, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-EAPT-900228-R-90, DMR SiteID:BPFIBE)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon

•. Atlantic Salmon Strains: St. John and Penobscot strains• Gear Type: One group of 24 net pens, one group of ten pens, and one group of 20

pens. The site is 1242’ x 1000’ and contains 28.5 acres. On February 19, 2003,the permittee requested permission from the ACOE to modify the pen type anddistribution to use 20, 70-meter polar circles moored together in a single group.

J. Maine Salmon, Inc.

J1. ShackfOrd Head, Cobscook Bay (ACOB Permit No: MB-EAPT-892130-R-90, DMRSite ID: MESI SH)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, Atlantic halibut, sea scallops,American and European oysters

• Species Cultivated: As of 4/15/01, Maine Salmon, Inc. only grew Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: Penobscot and St. John strains• Gear Type: 20 cages take up approximately 0.93 of an acre, which is 11% of the

lease site. The cages are 40’ x 40’ steel.

K. L.R. Enterprises, Inc.

Ki. Birch Point, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-EAPT-900277-R-90, DMR SiteID:LRENTE)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: smolts supplied by Heritage Salmon• Gear Type: Maximum of 40, 15-meter square pens

1(2. Treat Island, Cobscook Bay (ACOB Permit No: ME-EAPT-882089-R-89, DMR SiteID: LREN Th)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon.• Atlantic Salmon Strains: no non-native strains• Gear Type: Lease area is 1008’ x 650’ and contains 12, 20-meter steel cages

K3. Gove Point, Cobscook Bay (ACOE Permit No: ME-EAPT-R-90, DMR ID LREN GS)• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, sea urchins, giant sea scallops• Species Cultivated: None at this time• Atlantic Salmon Strains: None at this time• Gear Type: Lease is limited to amaximum of 40, 15-meter square pens. Pens to

be located at least 240’ from the southern boundary of lease. As of March 20,

Page24of 101

2001, no cages were present on this site. Possible redevelopment was consideredin spring 2001.

L. Maine Coast Nordic

Li. Cutler Peninsula, Macbias Bay (ACOE Permit No: 199l-01882-R-90, DMR Site ID:MCNI CW)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: St. John or Penobscot from Heritage Salmon• Gear Type: March 20, 2001: no cages on site. Plans to install a six-cage 24 x 24

meter steel cage system or five units of 100-meter plastic cages.

L2. Sand Cove North, Eastern Bay (ACOE Permit No: 1996-00240, DMR Site ID:MCNB SCN)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, Atlantic cod, haddock, Atlantic halibut• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: smolts supplied by Heritage Salmon• Gear Type: The site is 1000’ x 435’ and includes a group of nii~e pens.

L3. Little River South, Cutler (ACOE Permit No: ME-CYTL-883416-R-90, DMR SiteID:MCNCCH)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, halibut• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: St. John strain• Gear Type: The site covers an area of 300’ x 1000’ and includes one row of eight

70-meter cages.

IA. Little River North, Cutler (ACOE PeimitNo: 1993-00240, DMR Site ID MCNC CN)• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon

Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: St. John strain• Gear Type: Eight 70-meter cages plus one 40-meter cage. Site area is 300’ x

1000’.

L5. Spectacle Island, Eastern Bay, Beals (ACOB Permit No: 199101875-R-92, DMR SiteID: MCNISI)

• Species Authorized: Atlantic salmon• Species Cultivated: Atlantic salmon• Atlantic Salmon Strains: St. John strain• Gear Type: Up to 12, 75-foot-diameter circular pens within a 400’ x 1089’

rectangular area and a 32’ x 16’ work barge.

Page 25 of 101

M. Pierce Associates, Inc.

Ml. Sheepscot River, Wiscasset,Lincoln County, Maine (ACOE Permit No: 1998802560,DMR Site ID: PIER SR)

• Species Authorized: rainbow trout, Arctic char, brown trout• Species Cultivated: female triploid rainbow trout• Atlantic Salman Strains: None cultivated• Gear Type: Up to nine five-foot-diameter octagonal pens. A permit amendment

authorized the addition of four 16’ x 16’ “experimental pens” to take the place ofone of the original 50-foot pens.

ACOE Special Conditions to be Included in the Modified RITA Section 10 Permits:

The ACOE is proposing to include the following special conditions in each of the existing RHASection 10 permits referenced in this opinion to provide protection to the Atlantic salmon GOMDPS:

1; a. Except as described in this section, the use of reproductively-viable Atlantic salmonoriginating from non-North American stock is prohibited. Non-North American stock isdefined as any Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) that possess genetic material derived partially(hybrids) or entirely (purebreds) from any Atlantic salmon stocks of non-North Americanheritage, regardless of the number of generations that have passed since the initialintroductioft of the non-North American genetic material. For the purposes of this permit,classification of brood fish as either North American or non-North American stock will bebased on genetic evaluation of each fish’s DNA in accordance with the attached AtlanticSalmon Microsatellite Analysis Protocol (Attachment 1). The microsatellite protocol thall beused to classify each brood fish, and only the progeny of brood fish classified as NorthAmerican stock will be allowed in net pens. No fish classified as non-North Americanaccording to Attachment 1 can be utilized to create progeny for stocking in net pens.

b. Prior to September 1 of each year, beginning in 2003, genetic evaluation informationdeveloped pursuant to Attachment 1 shall be submitted to the Services, with confirmationsent to the ACOE.

c. Prior to November 30 of each year, beginning in 2003, the facility shall submit a letter tothe Services certifying that it will be in compliance with condition la. Within 30 days ofreceipt of the letter from the facility, the Services will provide the ACOB with confirmationthat the facility will be in compliance with condition la. In the event any fish or gametes areclassified as non-North American pursuant to Attachment 1, the facility shall also report tothe Services the disposition of those fish or gametes. No fish will be stocked into fish penswithout prior written approval from the ACOE.

d. Effcctive July 31, 2004, all reproductively-viable Atlantic salmon placed in net pens mustbe of North American origin. Within 30 days after placement of fish, the facility shallprovide the ACOE with written confirmation regarding compliance with this condition.

Page26of 101

e. All reproductively-viable non-North American Atlantic salmon must be removed from netpens prior to March 1, 2006. Within 30 days after removal of fish, the facility shall providethe ACQE with written confirmation regarding compliance with this condition.

2. Transgenic salmonids are prohibited at these facilities. Transgenic salmonids are defined asspecies of the genera Salmo, Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus of the family Salmonidae and bearing,within their DNA, copies of novel genetic constructs introduced through, recombinant DNAtechnology using genetic material derived from a species different from the recipient, andincluding descendants of individuals so transfected. This prohibition does not apply to vaccines.

3. Prior to stocking salmonid species other than Atlantic salmon at these facilities, certificationfrom the Maine Fish Health Technical Committee and DMR of compliance with diseasemanagement standards permitting the culture of alternative salmonid species shall be provided tothe ACOE. No alternative salmonid species shall be stocked without prior written approval fromthe ACOE.

4. The facility shall employ a fully functional marine containment management system (CMS)designed, constructed, and operated so as to prevent the accidental or consequential escape offish to open water. Each CMS plan shall include a site plan or schematic with specifications ofthat particular system. Each facility shall develop and utilize a CMS consisting of managementand auditing methods to describe or address the following: inventory control procedures, predatorcontrol procedures, escape response procedures, ‘unusual event management, severe weatherprocedures, and training. The CMS shall contain a facility-specific list of critical control points(CCP) where escapes have been determined to potentially occur. Each CCP must include thefollowing: the specific location, control mechanisms, critical limits, monitoring procedures,appropriate corrective actions, verification procedures that define adequate CCP monitoring, anda defined recordkeeping system.

a. The CMS will be audited at least once per year and within 30 days of a reportable escape(more than 50 fish two kg or larger) by a party other than the facility operator or owner whois qualified to conduct such audits and is approved by the ACOE and the Services. The firstannual audit shall be conducted prior to March 1, 2004. The ACOE, with the approval of theServices, may exempt a facility from an escape-triggered audit when circumstances precludethe possibility that it was the source of the escaped fish. A written report of these audits shallbe provided to the facility, the ACOE, and the Services within 30 days of the audit beingconducted. If deficiencies are identified during the audit, the report shall contain a correctiveaction plan, including a timetable for implementation and re-auditing to verify thatdeficiencies are addressed in accordance with the corrective action plan. Additional thirdparty audits to verify correction of deficiencies shall be conducted in accordance with thecorrective action plan or upon request of the ACOE. The facility shall notify the ACOE andthe Services upon completion of corrective actions.

b. At each facility, personnel responsible for routine operation shall be properly trained andqualified to implement the CMS.

Page 27 of 101

c. Each facility shall maintain complete records, logs, reports of internal and third partyaudits, and documents related to the CMS. The CMS shall require the submission ofstanding inventory at the facility, including all transfers in and out and all losses associatedwith disease, predation, or escapes as reported to the DIvER at the pen level of detail on amonthly basis according to the requirements of 12 MRSA Section 6077.

d. If corrective actions required by the corrective action plan are not implemented, all pensand fish will be removed from the water within 30 days of notification from the ACOE.

5. The permittees shall report any known or suspected escape of more than 50 fish with anaverage weight of two kg each or more within 24 hours to the contacts given below. The callershould indicate they are providing notification of a reportable escape event at a marine cage.They should identify the location, DMR site ID for marine cages, contact person and number,time of event, estimated size of escape, and actions being taken. The escape reporting form(Attachment 2) should be faxed to the Services (USFWS: 207-827-6099 and NOAA Fisheries:207-866-7342) and the ACOE (207-623-8206). Other escape events must be logged according tothe CMS and provided to the ACOB and the Services upon request.

Contact during the work week:

(1) Primary: DMR, Aquaculture Coordinator, (207) 624-6554

If voice mail indicates Aquaculture Coordinator is out of the office, contact:

~(2) Secondary: DIvER, Marine Patrol, Division II, Lamoine, (207) 667-3373

Primary contact during the off-hours:

Orono State Police Dispatch, 1-800-432-7381

6. In accordance with the following dates, Atlantic salmon introduced into net pens must bemarked to designate their origin so that in the event they escape from the facility, these fish canbe identified.

a. In the event that a commercially-reared Atlantic salthon is found in a river within the rangeof the GOM DPS, and the facility from which it escaped cannot be identified, all facilitiesshall conduct third party audits of containment procedures as described in Special Condition•number 4 above.

b. After April 1, 2004, all new Atlantic salmon placed in net pens must be identified throughexternal means as commercially-reared and be identifiable as having been stocked in Mainewaters. Priozto marking fish to be stocked, the facility shall submit to the ACOE and theServices for review and approval a descflption of the marking method(s) to be used for thispurpose.

Page 28 of 101

c. After July 31, 2004, all new fish placed in net pens must be identifiable through externalmeans as commercially-reared and be identifiable through any means as having been stockedin Maine waters and as to the hatchery from which they came. Prior to marking fish to bestocked, the facility shall submit to the ACOB and the Services for review and approval adescription of the marking method(s) to be used for this purpose. In the event similar orconflicting marking systems are proposed by different facilities, the ACOE may require afacility to make changes to assure that each facility owner will be uniquely identifiable.

d. After July 31, 2005, all new Atlantic salmon placed in net pens must be identifiablethrough external means as commercially-reared and be identifiable as having been stocked inMaine waters and to a level that is more specific than the above hatchery mark (e.g., hatcherysublots, facility owners). Prior to marking fish to be stocked, the facility shall submit to theACOE and the Services for review and approval a description of the marking method(s) to beused for this purpose. In the event similar or conflicting marking systems are proposed bydifferent facilities, the ACOB may require a facility to make changes to assure that thehatchery of origin will be uniquely identifiable.

e. By September 1, 2006, each permittee must submit to the ACOE and the Services forreview and approval a final report describing investigations of methods or procedures thatmay be used to identify Atlantic salmon as to the facility into which they were placed. Thefacility shall specify, to the ACOE and the Services for their review and approval, adescription of the marking method(s) it pfoposes to use for this purpose. In the event sjmilaror conflicting marking methods are proposed by different facilities, the ACOE may requirethe permittee to make changes to assure that fish will be uniquely identifiable as to thefacility into which they are placed. During development of the marking method, the facilityshall submit periodic progress reports describing proposals for and the results ofinvestigations or trials. At a minimum, the progress reports shall be submitted by January 31and July 31 of each year, or more frequently as indicated by the nature of the investigations,in order to keep the ACOE and the Services informed of develOpments and proposals on atimely.basis.

f. By July 31, 2007, all Atlantic salmon placed in net pens must be identifiable throughexternal means as commercially-reared and identifiable as to the individual facility intowhich they were placed.

7. Personnel from the ACOE and the Services shall be allowed to inspect the work authorized bythese permits during normal operation hours. These personnel will provide credentials attestingto their position and will follow the site’s biosecurity procedures. These personnel shall beallowed to take tissue samples from fish or, if necessary, take random samples of fish from thesefacilities (as well as fish at any life stage from the hatcheries that support these facilities) tomonitor compliance with Special Conditions No. 1, 2, and 6. Operational records regardingcompliance with this permit shall be made available by the permittee to these personnel for theirinspection and reproduction upon request.

Page 29 of 101

Action Area

The action area is defined in 50 CFR §402.02 as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly bythe federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” To ensure that theaction area includes all of the direct and indirect effects caused by escaped aquaculture fish, thearea for this consultation encompasses the immediate area of each marine aquaculture facility, aswell as the entire geographic range of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon from the KennebecRiver downstream of the former Edwards Dam site to the international boundary separating NewBrunswick from the State of Maine. The action area also includes the industry’s two freshwaterhatcheries that are located within the (3GM DPS, at Deblois, Maine on a tributary of the PleasantRiver, and at East Machias, Maine on a tributary of the East Machias River.

II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES ANI) ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The Status of the Species section presents biological information relevant to formulating theopinion and documents the effects of all past human and natural activities that have led to thecurrent status of the species throughout its range. The Environmental Baseline provides asnapshot of a species health or status at a given time within the action area and is used as abiological basis upon which to analyze the effects of the proposed action. Assessment of theenvironmental baseline includes an analysis of the past and present impacts of all state, federal,or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of allproposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early Section 7consultation, and the impact of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with theconsultation in process (50 CUR §402.02).

The Environmental Baseline is typically a more narrowly focused subset of the Status of theSpecies evaluation. However, in this opinion, the action area of the proposed agency actionencompasses the entire geographic range of the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS. Therefore, thefollowing discussion of the status of the species also fully describes the current environmentalbaseline condition for the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS.

A. Species Description

The Atlantic salmon is an anadromous fish species, which means that it spends most of its adultlife in the ocean but returns to freshwater to reproduce. Coloration varies from silver, while atsea, to a dark brown or bronze after entering fresh water to spawn. The Atlantic salmon is nativeto the basin of the North Atlantic Ocean, from the Arctic Circle to Portugal in the easternAtlantic, from Iceland and southern Greenland, and from the Ungava region of northern Quebecsouth to the Connecticut River (Scott and Crossman 1973). In the United States, Atlantic salmonhistorically ranged from Maine down into Long Island Sound. However, the Central NewEngland and Long Island Sound DPS have been extirpated.

Page 30 of 101

The ESA considers the term “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, andany distinct population segment (DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife thatinterbreeds when mature.” Species sub-structure is particularly important to anadromoussalmonids because their strong homing capability fosters the formation of discrete populations

• exhibiting important adaptations to local riverine ecosystems and the watersheds that determinetheir character (Berst and Simon 1981; Utter 1981; Utter et al. 1993; Nielsen 1998).

A DPS of anadromous Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine was listed as an endangered specieson Nbvember 17, 2000 (65 FR 69459). The GOM DPS encompasses all naturally reproducingrenwant populations of Atlantic salmon downstream of the former Edwards Dam site on theKennebec River northward to the mouth of the St. Croix River. The watershed structure,available Atlantic salmon habitat, and abundance of Atlantic salmon at various life stages arebest known for the following eight rivers: Dennys River, East Machias River, Machias River,Pleasant River, Narraguagus River, Ducktrap River, Sheepscot River, andCove Brook (65 FR69459, Nov. 17, 2000). The USFWS’s GOM DPS river-specific hatchery-reared fish are alsoincluded as part of the listed entity.

1. Listing History

In response to a petition submitted in 1993 to list Atlantic salmon under the ESA, the Servicescompleted a review of the species’ status in 1995 (USFWS/NOAA Fisheries 1995). The Servicesconcluded that there was a danger of extinction and later in 1995 published a proposed rule to lista GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon in seven Maine rivers as threatened (60 FR 50530, Sept. 29,1995). In that proposed rule, the State of Maine was invited to prepare a plan to eliminate,minimize and mitigate threats to Atlantic salmon and their habitat. On December 18, 1997, theServices withdrew the proposed rule to designate the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS as threa~ened(62 FR 66325, Dec. 18, 1997). The withdrawal was based on an evaluation of the informationthen known about the biological status of the species, as well as consideration of ongoing actionsby international, state, federal, and private entities, including the state’s Atlantic SalmonConservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers (Conservation Plan) (MASCP 1997).

In January 1999, the Services received the State of Maine’s 1998 Annual Progress Report onimplementation of the Conservation Plan. After review of the Annual Report, public comments,and a 1999 Atlantic salmon status review (AASBRT 1999), the Services determined that thespecies’ status was more precarious than indicated by the available information at the time oftheir December 1997 determination not to list the species. On November 17, 1999, the Servicesproposed to list the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS, this time as an endangered species. After reviewof public comments and consideration of the best available scientific and commercialinformation and data, the Services published a final rule on November 17, 2000 listing theAtlantic salmon GOM DPS as an endangered species.

Page 31 of 101

B. Life History

1. Freshwater L~festages

Adult Atlantic salmon ascend the rivers of New England beginning in the spring, continuing intothe fall, with the peak occurring in June. Once an adult salmon enters a river, rising rivertemperatures and water flows stimulate upstream migration. When a salmon returns to its homeriver after two years at sea (referred to as 2-sea-winter or 25W fish), it is approximately 75 cmlong and weighs approximately 4.5 kg. A minority (10-20%) of Maine salmon return as smallerfish, or grilse, after only one winter at sea (1 SW) and still fewer return as larger 3-sea-winter(35W) fish. A spawning run of salmon with representation of several age groups ensures somelevel tf genetic exchange among generations. Once in freshwater, adult salmon cease to feedduring their up-river migration. Spawning occurs in late October through November.

Approximately 20% of Maine Atlantic salmon return to the sea immediately after spawning, butthe majority overwinter in the river until the following spring before leaving (Baum 1997). Uponreturning to salt water, the spawned salmon or “kelt” resumes feeding. If the salmon survivesanother one or two years at sea, it will return to its home rivet as a “repeat spawner.”

The salmon’s preferred spawning habitat is coarse gravel or rubble substrate (up to 8.5 cm indiameter) with adequate water circulation to keep the buried eggs well oxygenated (Peterson1978). Water depth at spawning sites is typically between 30 and 61 cm, and water velocityaverages 60 cm per second (Beland 1984). Spawning sites are often located at the downstreamend of riffles where water percolates through the gravel or where upwellings of groundwateroccur (Daniel a aL 1984). Redds, the depression where eggs are deposited, average 2.4 m longand 1.4 m wide (Baum 1997). An average of 240 eggs is deposited per 100 m2, or one “unit” ofhabitat (Baum 1997). Beland (1984) reported that the total original Atlantic salmon spawningand nursery habitat in Maine rivers was 476,577 units (100 square yard units).

In late March or April, the eggs hatch into larval alevins or sac fry. Alevins remain in the reddfor about six weeks and are nourished by their yolk sac. Alevins emerge from the gravel aboutmid-May, generally at night, and begin actively feeding. The survival rate of these fry is affectedby stream gradient, overwintering temperatures and water flows, and the level of predation andcompetition (Bley and Moring 1988).

Within days, the free-swimming fry enter the parr stage. Parr prefer areas with adequate cover(rocks, aquatic vegetation, overhanging streambanks, and woody debris), water depths rangingfrom approximately ten to 60 cm, velocities between 30 and 92 cm per second, and temperaturenear 16°C (Beland 1984). Parr actively defend territories (Daniel et al; 1984; Mills 1964;Kalleberg 1958; Allen 1940). Some male parr become sexually mature and can successfullyspawn with sea-runadult females. Water temperature (Elliot 1991), parr density (Randall 1982),photoperiod (Lundqvist 1980), the level of competition and predation (Hearn 1987; Fausch1988), and the food supply, all influence the growth rate of parr. Maine Atlantic salmon producefrom five to ten pan per unit of habitat (Baum 1997). Parr feed on larvae of mayflies and

Page32of 101

stoneflies, chironomides, caddisilies and blackflies, aquatic annelids and mollusks, as well asnumerous terrestrial invertebrates that fall into the river (Scott and Crossman 1973).

In a parr’s second or third spring, when it has grown to 12.5-15 cm in length, physiological,morphological and behavioral changes occur (Schaffer and Elson 1975). This process, called“smoltification,” prepares the parr for migration to the ocean and life in salt water. In Maine, themajority (80%) of parr remains in fresh water for two years while the balance remains for threeyears (Baum 1997). The biochemical and physiological modifications that occur duringsmoltification prepare the fish for the dramatic change in osmoregulatory needs that comes withthe transition from a freshwater to a saltwater habitat (Bley 1987; Farmer et al. 1977; Hoar 1976;TJSFWS 1989; and Ruggles 1980). As smolts migrate from the rivers between April and June,they tend to travel near the water surface, where they must contend with changes in watertemperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, pollution levels, and predation. Most smolts in New Englandrivers enter the sea during May and June to begin their ocean migration. It is estimated thatMaine salmon rivers produce 19 frS’ per unit of habitat, resulting in five to ten parr per unit andultimately three smolts per unit (Baum 1997).

2. Marine Lifestages

Atlantic salmon of U.S. origin are highly migratory, undertaking long marine migrations from themouths of U.S. rivers into the northwest Atlantic Ocean, where they are distributed seasonallyover much of the region (Reddin 1985). The marine phase starts with smoltification andsubsequent migration through the estuary of the natal river. Upon completion of thephysiological transition to salt water, the post-smolt stage grows rapidly and has beendocumented to move in small schools loosely aggregated close to the surface (Dutil and Coutu1988). After entering into the nearshore waters of Canada, the U.S. post-smolts become part of amixture of stocks of Atlantic salmon from various North American streams. Upon entry into themarine environment, post-smolts appear to feed opportunistically, primarily in the neuston (nearthe surface). Their diet includes invertebrates, amphipods, euphausiids, and fish (ITislop andYoungson 1984; Jutila and Toivonen 1985; Fraser 1987; Hislop and Shelton 1993).

Most of the GOM DPS-origin salmon spend two winters in the ocean before returning to streamsfor spawning. Aggregations of Atlantic salmon may still occur after the first winter at sea, butmost evidence indicates that they travel individually (Reddin 1985). At this stage, Atlanticsalmon primarily eat fish, feeding upon capelin, herring, and sand lance (Hansen and Pethon1985; Reddin 1985; Hislop and Shelton 1993).

3. Disease Factors, Predators, and Competitors

Many parasites and diseases are known to infect Atlantic salmon, but Maine wild salmonpopulations are infrequently affected by them (Baum 1997). Most of the infections occur underhatchery or other crowded rearing conditions. The common sea louse, found only on salmonids,is prevalent on Atlantic salmon at sea. On juvenile salmon iaMaine rivers, the common brooktrout ecto-parasite has been occasionally observed. In salt water, vibriosis is a common bacterial

Page 33 of 101

disease affecting most species of fish, including farmed Atlantic salmon. Therefore, vibriosis isalso thought to affect wild salmon populations(Baum 1997).

The retrovirus salmon swimbladder sarcoma virus (SSSV) appears to exist at some level in wildpopulations of salmon in Maine, although symptoms have not been observed in wild salmon(AASBRT 1999). In 1998, SSSV was detected in Pleasant River broodstock held by theUSFWS, resulting in the decision to destroy all captive broodstock for this river. SSSV has beenidentified at very low levels in captive broodstock populations from three other GOM DPSrivers.

Coldwater disease is caused by the bacterium Flavobacterium psychrophilum and has recentlybeen found to be a serious problem for Atlantic salmon in New England waters. The pathogencauses mortality in juvenile salmon. The pathogen is transmitted vertically from carrier sea-runadults to offspring via eggs [U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee (USASAC) 2000; 65FR 69476, Nov. 17,2QQO)].

The infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV) appeared on the North American continent in 1996in Canadian aquaculture pens, within the known infective range of U.S. sea pens. ISAV was firstdetected at a Maine salmon farm in Cobscook Bay in January 2001, with subsequent outbreaks atseveral other salmon farms in Cobscook Bay. The ISAV virus is extremely destructive tomaturing salmon, and there is no known cure (USASAC 2000; 65 FR 69476, Nov. 17, 2000).

Known predators of Atlantic salmon include marine mammals (e.g., seals, porpoises, anddolphins), terrestrial mammals (e.g., otters, minks), birds, fish and sharks. Atlantic salmon postsmolts are preyed upon by cod, whiting, cormorants, ducks, tems, gulls, and many otheropportunistic predators (Hvidsten and MØkkelgjerd 1987; GunnerØd et al. 1988; Hvidsten andLund 1988; Montevecchi et at. 1988; Hislop and Shelton 1993). Cormorants and striped bass aretransitory predators that impact migrant juveniles in the lower river and estuarine areas. Sealshave reached high population levels not reported before, and salmon remain vulnerable to sealpredation throughout much of their range.

Competitive interactions of Atlantic salmon with non-salmonine fish, especially introducedspecies, are not well understood (AASBRT 1999). Interactions between wild Atlantic salmonand other salmonids are mostly limited to brook trout, and occasionally brown trout.Competition appears to play an important regulatory role shortly after fry emerge from redds,when fry densities are at their highest (Ilearn 1987). These interactions may cause Atlanticsalmon and brook and brown trout populations to fluctuate from year to year. Since brook troutand Atlantic salmon co-evolved, however, wild populations should be able to co-exist withminimal long-term effects (Hearn 1987; Fausch 1988). Where resources are limited,interspecific competition can exist between brown trout and Atlantic salmon and may causeinteractive segregation, or affect the growth and survival of these species. Several other fishspecies occur in the GOM DPS rivers, including smailmouth and largemouth bass, pickerel, andlandlocked salmon. In general, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the competitive effects ofthese species on salmon, as no data are currently available (AASBRT 1999). Atlantic salmonand rainbow trout produced by the aquaculture industry (including non-North American strains

Page34of 101

and potentially transgenics) that escape from hatcheries or net pens also compete with wildAtlantic salmon. (This topic is discussed further later in this section of the opinion, as well as inthe Effects of the Action section.)

C. Population Dynamics

1. Historical Abundance

Anadromous Atlantic salmon were native to nearly every major coastal river north of the HudsonRiver in New York (Atkins 1874; Kendall 1935). The annual historic Atlantic salmon adultpopulation returning to U.S. rivers has been estimated to be between 300,000 (Stolte 1981) and500,000 (Beland 1984). The largest historical salmon runs in New England were likely in theConnecticut, Merrimack, Androscoggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot Rivers.

By the early iSOOs, Atlantic salmon runs in New England had been severely depleted due to theconstruction of dams, over fishing, and water pollution, all of which greatly reduced the species’distribution in the southern half of its range. Restoration efforts were initiated in the mid-i 800s,but there was little success due to the presence of dams and the inefficiency of early fishways(Stolte 1981). There was a brief period in the late nineteenth century when limited runs werereestablished in the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers by artificial propagation, but these runswere extirpated by the end of the century (USFWS 1989). By the end of the nineteenth century,three of the five largest salmon populations in New England (in the Connecticut, Merrimack, andAndroscoggin Rivers) had been eliminated.

2. Current Abundance

As with most anadromous species, Atlantic salmon can exhibit temporal changes in abundance.Angler catch and trapping data from 1970 to 1998 provide the best available composite index ofrecent adult Atlantic salmon population trends within the GOM DPS rivers. These indicesindicate, that there was a dramatic decline in the mid-1980s, and that populations have remainedat low levels ever since. Figure 6 demonstrates this trend (AASBRT 1999).

Total documented (rod and trap caught. fish) natural (wild and stocked fry) GOM DPS spawnerreturns for 1995 through 2001 are: 1995 (85); 1996 (82); 1997 (38); 1998 (23); 1999 (32); 2000(28); and 2001 (60) (USASAC Annual Report 2002/14). These counts (as well as the countsshown in Figure 6) represent minimal estimates of the wild adult returns, because not all GOMDPS rivers have trapping facilities (e.g., weirs) to document spawner returns in all years. Thecounts of redds conducted annually by the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (ASC)demonstrate that salmon do return to those rivers for which no adult counts are possible. Since2001, scientists have made an estimate of the total number of returning salmon to the GOM DPS.This estimate is calculated using capture data on GOM DPS rivers with trapping facilities(Dennys, Pleasant, and Narraguagus Rivers), combined with redd count data from the other fiveGOM DPS rivers. Documented returns based on these redd counts and trap data estimate a totalof 91 adult returns in 2000 and 98 adults in 2001, at 95% probability. The 90% probability

Page 35 of 101

estimate for returns to the GOM DPS in 2002 ranges from 23-46 adults. This estimate is thelowest on record for the 1991-2002 time series (John Kocik, pers. comm.).

Figure 6. Total Documented Natural (Wild and Fry Stocked) Spawner Returns fromUSASAC (1999) data (minimal estimates) for the GOM DPS 1970-1998.

600

500

400 ~

300

200

100

0 I,[[[III, IIIII~~~

Densities of young-of-the-year salmon (0+) and parr (1+ and 2+) generally remain low relative topotential carrying capacity. The depressed juvenile abundance is a direct result of low adultreturns in recent years. Survival from the parr to the smolt stage has previously been estimated torange from 35-55% (Baum 1997). Research in the Narraguagus River, however, demonstrated atthe 99% probability level that survival was less than 30% (Kocik et al. 1999). Survival from fryto smolt, based on results from hatchery fry stocking, is reported by Bley and Moring (198$) torange from about 1-12%, and survival from egg to smolt stage is reported by Baum (1997) to beapproximately 1.25%.

In short, naturally-producing Atlantic salmon populations in the GOM DPS are at extremely lowlevels of abundance. This conclusion is based principally on the fact that: 1) spawner abundanceis below 10% of the number required to maximize juvenile production; 2) juvenile abundanceindices are lower than historical counts; and 3) smolt production is less than one-third of whatwould be expected based on the amount of habitat available. Counts of adults and redds in al]rivers continue to show a downward trend from these already low abundance levels. Givenrecent estimates of spawner-recruitment dynamics, some researchers suggest that adult

Page 36 of 101

populations may not be able to replace themselves, and that populations would be expected todecline further (Beland and Friedland 1997).

D. Status of the Species and Factors Affecting its Environment

Atlantic salmon in the GOM DPS currently exhibit critically low spawner abundance, poormarine survival, and are confronted with a variety of threats, including artificially-reduced waterlevels, diseases and parasites, predation, sedimentation of habitat, and genetic intrusion bycommercially-raised Atlantic salmon that escape from freshwater hatcheries or marine cages.The Services listed the GOM OPS endangered because of the danger of extinction created byinadequate regulation of agricultural water withdrawals, disease, aquaculture, and low marinesurvival (65 FR 69476, Nov. 17, 2000). These and other factors, including conservation actions,affecting the currentstatus of the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS are discussed below.

1. Agricultural Water Withdrawals

Water withdrawals have the potential to reduce or expose salmon habitat in rivers. Sufficientwater flow, both in quality and quantity, is critical for all life stages of Atlantic salmon, fromspawning through smolt emigration and adult migration. Both water quality and quantity can beaffected by extraction of water for irrigation or other purposes. Changes in stream flow fromwithdrawals can also affect basic sediment transport functions and result in stream channelmodifications that could be detrimental to salmon.

One of the fourteen goals in the State of Maine’s Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan (see furtherdiscussion below on the Conservation Plan in Section II. D. 8. a.) called for the state and itspartners to “ensure water withdrawals do not adversely affect Atlantic salmon.” To achieve thisgoal, the Conservation Plan calls for the development of water use management plans for threedowneast river basins (Narraguagus, Pleasant, Mopang). In 1999, the State ofMaine establisheda committee to prepare water use management plans (WUMP) for these three downeast rivers.The WTJIvIP committee represented diverse interests, including landowners, lake associationmembers, conservation groups, blueberry growers, and state and federal agencies (IJSFWS wasactive on the committee). The WUMP report [Maine State Planning Office (MSPO) 2001] laysout a prescribed Set of actions that should result in the protection of salmon habitat while offeringsome predictability for water users. As a result of the ‘WUIVIP and its related implementationinitiatives, fewer growers are drawing water directly from rivers. Over the past several years,there has been a net reduction in the number of irrigators using water from streams (Nate Pennell,pers. comm.). Although numerous small growers continue to rely on direct withdrawals fromrivers, other growers are relying instead on groundwater withdrawals to meet their needs.Despite the fact thatMaine has made substantial progress in addressing the issue of agriculturalwater withdrawals through voluntary water use planning, adequate regulations are not in place toprovide sufficient protection to the GOM DPS. Water withdrawals could still occur at a time andplace that would result in habitat being unavailable or unsuitable for Atlantic salmon, whichcould adversely affect salmon numbers.

Page37of 101

2. Disease -

Fish diseases represent a natural source of mortality to Atlantic salmon in the wild, though majorlosses due to disease are generally associated with salmon used in aquaculture. Recent eventshave increased the Services’ knowledge of the threat from disease to the GOM DPS, including:1) the appearance of ISAV virus in 1996 in Canada and the collection of aquaculture escapeesand wild fish testing positive for the ISAV virus; 2) the appearance of ISAV detected in a Mainesalmon farm in Cobscook Bay in January 2001, and subsequent outbreaks at other farms inCobscook Bay (15 sites confirmed by DMR); 3) the discovery in 1998 of SSSV within the GOMDPS population; and 4) new information that became available in 1999 on the potential impact ofcoldwater disease on salmon.

a. Salmon Swimbladder Sarcoma Virus

SSSV appears to exist at some level in wild populations of salmon in Maine, although symptomshave nOt been observed in wild salmon (AASBRT 1999). Tn 1998, SSSV was detected inPleasant River broodstock held by the USFWS, resulting in the decision to destroy all captivebroodstock fOr this river. SSSV has also been identified at very low levels in captive broodstockpopulations from three other GOM DPS rivers. The occurrence of SSSV has inhibited theUSFWS’s conservation hatchery program for the Pleasant River, but a new broodstockpopulation has been established from smolts collected in the Pleasant River in 2000. The threatof SSSV to salmon populations living in the wild appears to be minimal, but this disease has thepotential to significantly affect the USFWS’s conservation hatchery program, given that diseasesare more likely to manifest themselves under hatchery conditions. The conservation hatcheryprogram is one component of the Services’ salmon recovery efforts.

b. Coldwater Disease

Coldwater disease caused by the bacterium Flavobacterium psychrophilum has recently beenfound to be a serious problem for Atlantic salmon in New England waters. The pathogen causesmortality in juvenile salmon. The pathogen is transmitted vertically from carrier sea-run adultsto offspring via eggs (Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee, 2000; 65 FR 69476, Nov. 17,2000).

c. Summary

Although direct loss of listed salmon in the wild from the above-mentioned diseases is difficultto assess, there is an indirect effeöt of these diseases through their impact on the river-specificfish culture program to enhance maintenance and recovery of the GOM DPS. The impacts ofISAV, SSSV, and coldwater disease in the fish hatchery environment are two-fold: first, hatcherymanagers will destroy diseased salmon to prevent the spread of disease and second, loss ofhatchery populations hinders salmon recovery. These diseases could pose a significant newhurdle to the USFWS’ s hatchery program’s ability to function effectively, thereby significantlydegrading an important salmon recovery strategy (AASBRT 1999).

Page38oflOl -

3. Predation

Predation has always been a factor influencing salmon numbers; but under conditions of ahealthy population, this would not be expected to threaten the continued existence of thatpopulation. However, low numbers of adult salmon returning to spawn in the GOM DPS,combined with the dramatic increases in population levels of some predators, such as cormorantsand seals, elevate the threat to wild salmon from predation. Although the magnitude of the effectof predation on the current status of wild salmon is unknown, the loss of even a small number offish to predation would adversely affect the GOM DPS population.

4. Sun’ival at Critical Life Stages

Scientific studies are ongoing to partition Atlantic salmon mortality into critical life stages. For anumber of years, marine survival rates have been known to be low for U.S. stocks of Atlanticsalmon (Beland and Friedland 1997). Scientists attribute natural mortality in the marineenvironment to sources including stress, predation, starvation, disease, and parasites. Becausethe year-to-year variation in return rates for U.S. salmon stocks is generally synchronous withother North American stocks, low marine survival appears, in part, to be due to some unknownfactors in the North Atlantic, particularly the Labrador Sea. Low marine survival rates arecurrently adversely affecting the GOM DPS population.

In recent years, outmigrating smolts have been trapped on some rivers within the GOM ]JPS.These studies have revealed that parr to smolt survival is significantly lower than was previouslyestimated (Kocik et al. 1999). Investigations of water quality parameters are being conducted inan effort to identify the factors contributing to high mortality during the last winter that juvenilesspend in the river before preparing to enter the ocean.

A portion of the smolts leaving some of the GOM DPS rivers have been tagged and tracked inorder to gain information on the outmigration route and success. These studies have revealedthat a large portion of the smolts do not make it out of the bay and into the open ocean. Theseresults indicate that there may be factors within the nearshore marine environment that arenegatively impacting survival. Recent studies on smolt conditions indicate that the smolts arenot adequately prepared for the transition to salt water. Smolts entering the estuary and marineenvironment unprepared for this transition are likely to experience high mortality. Additionalstudies on smolt physiology are currently being conducted, and data are being collected onvarious water quality parameters in GOM DPS watersheds.

Studies focused on various life stages of Atlantic salmon have identified low survival ratesduring the last winter that pan are in the river, during smolt outmigration from rivers, and duringthe long ocean migration. These low survival rates at various salmon lifestages, in combination,are negatively impacting Atlantic salmon survival and are likely to impede recovery. Research toidentify faptors affecting survival, and implementation of measures to improve these factors, areongoing and are of critical importance for the future of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon.

Page39of 101

5. Overutilization

Both commercial and recreational harvest of Atlantic salmon historically played a role in thedecline of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon. From the 1960s through the early 1980s, theaverage exploitation rate in Maine rivers was approximately 20% of the run (Beland 1984; Baum1997). In 1995, the State of Maine passed regulations to allow only catch and release fishing forAtlantic salmon. Because the catch and release salmon fishery posed a threat of mortality orinjury to the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon, it was discontinued by the State of Maine inDecember 1999. However, recreational fishing targeting other species still has the potential toresult in incidental catch of various life stages of Atlantic salmon that could result in their injuryor death. Atlantic salmon parr remain vulnerable to harvest by trout anglers, and mortalityassociated with this activity has been documented (MASCP 1997).

In 1987, the New England Fishery Management Council, pursuant to its authority under theMagnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., preparedand implemented a federal Fishery Management Plan (HAP) for Atlantic salmon. The FMPprohibits fishing for and possession of Atlantic salmon in the U.S. exclusive economic zone,eliminating additional impacts to the GOM DPS. The potential exists, however, for juvenile andadult GOM DPS Atlantic salmon to be taken incidentally as bycatch in commercial fisheriestargeting other species. While a review of existing commercial fishery records does not indicatethat bycatch of Atlantic salmon is a significant threat, additional investigation is warranted.

On February 5, 1999, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced adoption ofthe precautionary approach by continuing closure of the commercial Atlantic salmon fishery forNewfoundland and Labrador for an additional three years. The Newfoundland fishery had beenclosed since 1992. The West Greenland Commission of the North Atlantic Salmon ConservationOrganization (NASCO) agreed on a multi-year approach for conservation of salmon stocks inGreenland, including making this fishery for internal use only. The reported West Greenlandcatch in 1999 was 19 tons and, the unreported catch was estimated to be approximately 10-15tons. Ninety-one percent of the catch was estimated to be of North American origin, the highestproportion on record for this fishery.

In August of 2002, the Organization of Hunters and Fishermen in Greenland and the NorthAtlantic Salmon Fund signed an agreement to suspend all fishing for Atlantic salmon withinGreenland territorial waters, except for annual subsistence harvest. Under this agreement there isno commeicial sale of any kind, including export. The agreement covered the 2002 fishingseason and will remain in effect through April 25, 2003. Thereafter, its terms and conditionsmay be extended yearly to cover the successive 2003-2006 fishing seasons. This extension shalltake place automatically unless either party gives written notice to the other by April 25, yearly,of its intent to terminate the agreement. Although the commercial harvest of North Americanorigin Atlantic salmon has contributed negatively to the status of the GOM DPS, the continuationof the 2002 agreement will reduce the ongoing threat to the GOM DPS. Given the current lowlevel of abundance for the GOM DPS, even a small amount of ongoing subsistence harvest couldsubstantially affect the status of wild salmon.

Page 40 of 101

A small commercial fishery also exists off St. Pierre et Miquelon, a French territory off the coastof Newfoundland. Efforts to establish a sampling program to determine the composition of theSt. Pierre catch have so far been unsuccessful; Without these data, it is not possible to estimatethe level of take and the potential threat this fishery may pose to the GOM DPS.

6. Fish Stocking Practices

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (JEW) stocks a number of native andnon-native salmonids into rivers within the GOM DPS. Moreover, many non-native species offish have been introduced illegally into GOM DPS watersheds by individuals that wish to fish forthese species. Introduced salmonids may prey upon GOM DPS juvenile salmon and competewith wild salmon for food and habitat.

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) have been stocked by the ]FW into a number of headwater lakçswithin the watersheds of the GOM DPS in Washington County, including the Machias and EastMachias Rivers (MASCP 1997). The Sheepscot River is the only salmon river within the GOMDPS where brown trout have been captured during stream assessments (MASCP 1997). Browntrout stocked by the JEW in the Sheepscot River have established a self-sustaining population.Although the potential exists for brown trout to prey upon juvenile Atlantic salmon in theSheepscot River, most brown trout reside in the headwater section above Sheepscot Lake wherefew Atlantic salmon spawn (MASCP 1997). Because brown trout females are known to prefer.tospawn on existing redd sites, there is some potential for redd superimposition in Atlantic salmonspawning areas (ASCI]FW MOA 2002). Interspecific competition between brown trout and.Atlantic salmon also has the potential to negatively affect Atlantic salmon. Habitat use byAtlantic salmon has been found to be restricted through interspecific competition with browntrout that are more aggressive (Heggenes et al. 1999; Kennedy et al. 1986; Hearn 1987; Fausch1998). Furthermore, Harwood et al. (2001) determined that competition is not limited to thesummer months; instead, competition for food and resources observed during overwinteringindicates potential effects on both the long-term and short-term growth of wild Atlantic salmon.Also, at lower water temperatures, Atlantic salmon fry may compete less effectively than browntrout. In Europe, however, brown trout and Atlantic salmon are sympatric and habitat~egregation allows them to remain genetically isolated (Hesthagen 1988; Hearn 1987).

While there is evidence that brown trout may have a negative impact on Atlantic salthon, withinthe GOM DPS the extent of predation and competition between brown trout and Atlanticsalmonhas not been well documented. Although brown trout are capable of hybridizing with Atlantic.salmon, this also has not been documented in.the GOM DPS rivers. Therefore, it is likely thatthe impact of brown trout on wild Atlantic salmon in the Sheepscot River is relatively low.However, given that studies in other regions have documented negative interactions betweenbrown trout and Atlantic salmon, brown trout stocking poses a potential threat to Atlanticsalmon.

In 1995, the IIE’W stocked splake [lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) x brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis)] in seven lakes within the Sheepscot, Narraguagus, Pleasant, and Macbias River

Page4l of 101

• watersheds. In 2001, stocking of splake in Beddington Lake.(a lake on the mainstem of theNarraguagus River) was terminated. The splake stocking program in Beddington Lake was theonly downeast program on a mid-drainage lake that Atlantic salmon smolts migrate through. Inother downeast lakes, splake are only stocked upstream of Atlantic salmon rearing habitats.Little information is currently available to assess the level and significance that predation bysplake on Atlantic salmon has had on the GOM DPS, but cessation of the Beddington Lakestocking program has reduced this threat substantially.

Landlocked salmon (Salmo salar sebago) are present in lakes within the Sheepscot, Narraguagus,Pleasant, Macbias, East Machias, and Dennys River watersheds. Except for Pleasant River Lake,where the relict population of landlocked salmon is sustained by natural reproduction, fisherybiologists sustain these landlocked salmon populations through regular stocking programs, someof which began in 1937 or earlier (MASCP 1997). Predation on juvenile salmon by adultlandlocked salmon may occur either during periods of cool water temperatures before landlockedsalmon move to nearby lakes or during periods of high flows when larger landlocked salmonmight temporarily reside near nursery. habitat (MASCP 1997). It is believed that the extent ofpredation of wild Atlantic salmon by landlocked salmon is relatively minor (MASCP 1997).

7. Water Quality Issues

a. EPA Superfund Site

The Eastern Surplus Superfund Site is located in Meddybemps, Maine, adjacent to MeddybempsLake and the Dennys River. The Eastern Surplus Company stockpiled military surplus andsalvage items between 1946 and 1980. In 1985, the MEDEP examined the site and discoveredover 50 hazardous substances including polychiorinated biphenyls (PCB5), other chlorinatedorganic compounds, heavy metals, asbestos, and pesticides. Since the first discovery ofhazardous waste, the MEDEP and the EPA have donducted several remedial activities to removecontaminated soils, sediments, and groundwater. Tn 1997, the USFWS conducted a fish andfreshwater mussel contaminant study for the EPA on the upper Dennys River near the EasternSurplus site. PCB and organochlorine pesticide concentrations in wholebody smalimouth bassand white sucker from the Dennys River reach near the superfund site had higher tissueconcentrations than bass and suckers collected from an East Machias River reference reach. ThePCB and pesticide levels in these Dennys River fish, however, were not highly elevatedcompared to national and regional fish tissue data. The USFWS suggested that early life stagesof Atlantic salmon would accumulate even less contamination than bass and suckers in the upperDennys River, because young salmon have less residence time in the river (i.e., three years vs.permanent residents) and utilize habitat where less contamination is expected (i.e., riffles withcoarse substrates vs. deadwater with fine-grained sediment). The USFWS study only measuredfish tissue accumulation of contaminants. It is not known whether chronic low-level exposure ofDennys River contaminants may disrupt fish endocrine systems or have other developmental orgenerational impacts to early life stages of Atlantic salmon. The EPA plans to conduct a secondround of fish tissue contaminant monitoring in the Dennys River in 2003. The second roundshould provide information regarding the success of the superfund remediation and the currentpotential contaminant hazards to Atlantic salmon.

Page42of 101

b. Sedimentation, Herbicides and other Water Chemistry Issues

The MEDEP has identified sediment pollution as one of the more serious threats to stream healthin Maine (AASBRT 1999). Non-point source (NPS) pollution problems occur on all GOM DPSrivers and include various sOurces such as agriculture, forestry, airborne pollutants (e.g., acidraih), livestock grazing, septic systems, stream channel alteration, and urban runoff. The mostcommon NPS pollutants are sediment and nutrients but others include agricultural pesticides andherbicides, heavy metals, pathogens, and toxic chemicals. The watershed councils for GOMDPS rivers have played a dramatic role in addressing non-point source pollution, resulting inimproved habitat for the GOM DPS. Specific projects and accomplishments of the watershedcouncils are discussed below under Conservation and Recovery Programs (see Section II. D. 8.b.).

Hexazinone (velpar), a herbicide used by blueberry growers, has been detected at sites in theNarraguagus River. Concentrations detected have been relatively low and studies demonstratethat the river was capable of producing Atlantic salmon at a level considered normal given theadult abundance at the time. Since these studies, however, increased fry abundance has notresulted in a commensurate increase in parr and smolt abundance (AASBRT 1999). Hexazinoneplays a currently unknown but potential role in the status of salmon in the GOM DPS,particularly for the population in the Narraguagus River.

Water sampling by the MEDEP in cooperation with the watershed councils and the University ofMaine has identified low pH (i.e., acidic) values coinciding with low calcium and highexchangeable aluminum levels on downeast GOM DPS rivers. Measurements demonstratedhealthy water quality conditions in the summer but the occurrence of acidic episodes in the fall.The combination of low pH, high exchangeable aluminum, and low calcium levels is toxic to fishand can injure or kill individuals. Currently, a task force is being identified by the Services andtheir many partners in salmon conservation to further investigate the role of pH on the status ofthe GOM DPS and potential measures to improve the situation.

8. Conservation and Recovery Programs

The listing of the GOM DPS of AtlantIc salmon became effective on December 18, 2000. Anumber of conservation and recovery activities had been underway for some time prior to thelisting to address the declining numbers of Atlantic salmon in Maine rivers. Since the listingbecame effective, a number of conservation activities have been accomplished, while others arestill in progress. These include education and outreach activities, stocking, habitat restoration,and habitat protection through easements and purchases. Many of these actions are beingimplemented according to the Conservation Plan. The Services are also drafting a recovery planfor the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon, which will identify key tasks needed for recovery of theGOM DPS, as well as strategies to implement those tasks. The Services are also activelyengaged in discussions with various state agencies and industry representatives to identify andinsure implementation of measures to protect the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon.

Page 43 of 101

a. The Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers

In March 1997, the state produced the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven MaineRivers, an umbrella plan for the conservation and restoration of salmon runs in the Sheepscot,Ducktrap, Nárraguagus, Pleasant, Dennys, Machias, and East Macbias Rivers. The Task Force.that wrote the Conservation Plan was formed in response to the Services’ 1995 proposal to listthe Atlantic salmon as a threatened species. While the Conservation Plan has great merit, it wasnot implemented sufficiently to preclude the eventual need for listing the salmon under the ESA.The Conservation Plan is a collaborative effort between the public and private sectors andinitiated the formation of watershed councils (see Section II. D. 8. b.).

The Conservation Plan outlines 14 goals, divided under the following four subjects: 1) FishManagement; 2) Habitat Protection; 3) Habitat Enhancement; and 4) Species Protection. TheState of Maine and its partners have made steady and substantial progress toward meeting theCbnservation Plan’s goals. Progress includes more comprehensive fish health standards andprotocols, construction and operation of weirs, and limitation of direct water withdrawals fromcertain rivers to protect Atlantic salmon habitat. Volunteers and professionals have begun waterquality monitoring on each identified salmon river; the state has prohibited angling for Atlanticsalmon throughout Maine; and many organizations, government agencies, and landowners havedocumented and are addressing a variety of non-point source pollution problems. Biologistscontinue to implement recovery measures through population assessments and scientifically-based river-specific stocking programs; work continues toward permanent protection of criticalriparian habitat on each river; and conservationists are improving fish passage by removingdebris dams and upgrading fish passage facilities (Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission 2000).While progress is still being made towards achieving many of the goals outlined in theConservation Plan, it has not been successful in removing threats to or recovering numbers ofGOM UPS salmon to a degree where the protections of the ESA are no longer required.

b. Watershed Councils

Watershed councils for each of the GOM DPS rivers, which were formed at the recommendationof the Conservation Plan, are involved in a number of habitat assessment and protection effortsincluding water quality testing, non-point source pollution inventories, and securing conservationeasements on property adjacent tO riverine salmon habitat. Some examples of watershed councilactivities are given below.

The Dennys River Watershed Council has worked with the Maine Department of Transportationand private landowners to reduce sediment inputs from roadways and bridges. The council hasworked to improve fish passage at three locations within the watershed, and has advocated foradditional cleanup measures and continued monitoring of discharge from a junkyard andsuperfund site located adjacent to the Dennys River in the Town of Meddybemps. Most recently,the council organized a cooperative effort between state and federal agencies and conservationgroups to assess, improve, and monitor fish passage and water quality within Venture Brook, atributary of the Dennys River.

Page44of 101

The East Machias Watershed Council has targeted the reduction of non-point source pollution asa primary focus of their efforts to protect Atlantic salmon habitat. An all-terrain vehicle (ATV)crossing at Munson Rips, which runs directly through Atlantic salmon habitat on the EastMachias River, was identified as a direct contributor of sediment and petroleum products in theriver. The council worked with other groups and agencies to build a bridge over the EastMachias River in 2002, thereby removing vehicle traffic from the river.

The Ducktrap Coalition, led by the Coastal Mountains Land Trust, has preserved 80% of the landalong the Ducktrap River (approximately 1000 acres), that includes highly productive juvenileand nursery Atlantic salmon habitat. The Ducktrap River Watershed Council is the only GOMDPS watershed council that has taken on land protection as their maj or conservation effort. Theother councils have focused on non-point source pollution issues, such as addressing problemsassociated with poor land management practices and erosion from bridges and roads.

There are three land trusts that serve to protect and conserve land parcels along six of the GOMDPS rivers. These include the Sheepscot Valley Conservation Association, serving theSheepscot River; the Quoddy Regional Land Trust, which serves primarily the land east of andincluding the East Machias River; and the Downeast Rivers Land Trust, which serves the landwest of the East Machias River. All of these groups have had some success in protecting smallplots of land along these rivers.

The Cove Brook Watershed Council has only recently become established and received 501 (c)(3)status, giving them the capacity to hold land. The council is currently undertaking a watershedmanagement plan that includes identification of non-point sources of pollution, collection ofwater quality data, assessment of land use patterns, and instream habitat assessments for salmon(Dan : ircheis, pers. comm.).

The effects of the watershed council’s activities on the current status of salmon are not known.Their activities, however, play an important role in assuring that adequate and suitable habitat isavailable for Atlantic salmon, should populations recover to levels that can more fully utilize thehabitat within the range of the GOM DPS.

c. Project SHARE

Project SHARE (Salmon Habitat and River Enhancement), a non-profit organization, wasestablished in 1994 through the efforts of concerned landowners, salmon anglers, businesses, andvarious government agencies, to establish a forum to protect and enhance Atlantic salmon habitatin the Dennys, Nanaguagus, Pleasant, Machias and East Machias Rivers. SHARE is governedby a Steering Committee (Board of Directors) and is organized into two standing committees thatfocus on research and education. SHARE also hosts a restoration working group that facilitatesstrategies to identify, prioritize, repair, and restore threats to Atlantic salmon habitat. Recentprojects undertaken by this group include: Chase Mill Stream fish ladder restoration project;Munson Rips ATV bridge project; creation of a wetland and native plant nursery for use inrestoring damaged riparian habitat along salmon rivers; and a downeast watershed tour in

Page 45 of 101

October 2001 to highlight habitat restoration accomplishments (e.g., road culvert replacement)and future needs. The Chase Mills Stream fish ladder restoration ensured that Atlantic salmonwill continue to have access to upstream spawning and juvenile rearing habitat in the EastMacbias River watershed. The Munson Rips ATV project removed vehicle traffic directly fromthe East Machias River in a location where there is valuable spawning and juvenile rearinghabitat. In 2002, a salmon redd was found directly underneath the new bridge; without thebridge, this redd would likely have been destroyed by ATV activity.

d. Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission

The ASC is charged with restoration and management of Atlantic salmon throughout its originalrange in the State of Maine. Research and management activities include the following:broodstock collection, stocking programs, operation of weirs and traps (including three on GOMDPS rivers), electrofishing surveys to evaluate fish production and to measure success of variousstocking programs, redd counts, habitat surveys, various research projects (often in cooperationwith NOAA Fisheries) and administration of the Conservation Plan. The ASC closelycoordinates with the Services on all of these activities. These activities result in valuableinformation used by the ASC and Services biologists to make population estimates, assess thestatus of the GOM DPS, and develop appropriate recovery strategies.

The ASC has also taken on a land conservation and protection role and has acquired significantland parcels along the Dennys River, as well as a small parcel on the Narraguagus River. In2001, the USFWS awarded $2,000,000 to the State of Maine under the Recovery LandAcquisition Grants Program. These funds contributed to the state’s Machias River Project. Oneof the specific objectives of this project is to permanently protect the riparian system thatsupports and helps define Atlantic salmon habitat. The State of Maine and the ASC are in theprocess of using the $2,000,000 to acquire a conservation easement that includes developmentand mineral rights and timber harvesting restrictions along 213 stream and riverfront miles. Thisconservation easement will also secure a functioning buffer along a wide corridor on the mainstem of the Machias River and on tributaries of third order and larger stems. This will result inthe permanent protection of over 86% of all spawning, nursery, migration corridors, and adultholding areas for Atlantic salmon within the Machias River drainage.

e. Conservation Hatchery Program

Atlantic salmon stocking in rivers of the GOM DPS has historically used stocks from the GOMDPS and neighboring river systems. The river-specific stocking program for Atlantic salmon inthe GOM DPS was initiated in 1991 by the State of Maine and the USFWS. Currently, captivebroodstock populations are held in isolation bays at the Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery(CBNFII) in Orland, Maine for the following rivers: Dennys, East Machias, Machias,Narraguagus, Sheepscot, and Pleasant. Broodstock collections began in 1991 and initiallyfocused on the collection of returning adults from the sea. However, due to insufficient numbersof returning adults, pan were collected beginning in 1992. These collections have increased theeffective population size (wild and captive) and provide a buffer against extinction in the wild.The focus of the program has been to produce fry that are then stocked back into the river of

Page4óof 101

parental origin; some parr or smolts are also being stocked. The stocking program attempts tosaturate the available habitat in each river. The hatchery program has contributed to increases inadult returns, but not to the levels needed for self-sustaining populations in the GOM DPS.

Recently, the Maine aquaculture industry has participated in the supplementation program byrearing eggs derived from these river-specific broodstock. In July 1996,the Services, the State ofMaine and .representatives of the three largest salmon aquaculture companies (Atlantic Salmon ofMaine, Heritage Salmon, and Maine Aquafoods) signed a Memorandum of Understanding,which outlined the transfer of river-specific eyed eggs to private aquaculture facilities. TheUSFWS transferred eyed eggs from the CBNFH to the industry in 1996 (30,000), 1997 (80,000),and 1998 (70,000). In 1996, the eggs originatedfrom the Dennys, Machias, and Narraguagusbroodstock populations. In 1997, the eggs originated from the Dennys, East Machias, andMachias broodstock populations. Tn 1998, the eggs originated from the Dennys, Machias,Narraguagus, and Sheepscot broodstock populations. The transferred eggs were reared at varioushatcheries owned by the aquaculture companies. The thajority of the fish grown from these eggswere released into the river of origin as 1+ parr and smolts, while the remainders were stockedinto their river of origin as mature, marine-reared adults. Eggs transferred in 1997 matured in2000 while the 1998 transfer matured in 2001.

In 2000, 1038 adult salmon were stocked into the Dennys (112), Machias (176), and St. CroixRivers (750). Post-stocking assessments documented an increase in redd production attributableto these stocked adults. In 2001, 729 adult salmon were stocked into the Dennys (75), Machias(104), and St. Croix Rivers (550). Preliminary analyses indicated that the 2001-stocked adultswere also responsible for an increase in the number of redds documented within each recipientriver (Finaly et al. 2002). In an effort to directly estimate the reproductive success of these fish,Mackey and Atkinson (2003) trapped redds in the Dennys River and Cathance Stream in thespring of 2001 and 2002 to estimate the number of fry emerging per redd and to document thequality of the fry (size). Small numbers o fry were detected, verifying that some reproductiondid occur. Although interpretation of the results was problematic, the authors still believed theyhad detected both failed and extremely low rates of reproduction by the net pen-reared adults(Mackey and Atkinson 2003).

A study by Mackey and Brown (2003) investigated the possibility that the poor reproductivesuccess displayed by stocked pen-reared adult Atlantic salmon was due to fertilization problemscaused by poor or defective gametes. The study indicated that there was not a problem with thegametes of these fish. However, the low rates and late timing of sexual maturity among bothmales and females in the study indicate that spawning in the wild may have been at a lower ratethan expected due to a paucity of sexually mature fish. Furthermore, spawning well past thewindow of natural spawning may have reduced the reproductive success of those fish that didsexually mature and spawn. The study concludes that future enhancement efforts that use adultsalmon as natural spawners should not be attempted before issues of maturation rates and timingare resolved (Mackey and Brown 2003). Although these assessment studies were somewhatproblematic, all efforts undertaken to date (ultrasonic telemetry, redd counts, fry trapping,electrofishing) to evaluate the success of the adult pen-reared stocked salmon indicate that theyachieved low reproductive success (Mackey, pers. comm.). As a result, the adult stocking

Page 47 of 101

program has probably not contributed positively to the current status of the GOM DPS.However, this approach may show promise, particularly in rivers with very low or no adultreturns, if some factors (such as low maturation rates and timing) can be addressed (Mackey andAtkinson 2003).

f. Staltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program

In 2002, $5,000,000 was made available under the Staltonstall-Kennedy Act to fund projectsunder the heading “Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture Development Considering the EndangeredSpecies Status of Atlantic Salmon.” The request for proposals for distribution of these fundsstated that interbreeding with and competition from escaped farm-raised salmon from Maine’saquaculture industry may threaten the wild salmon population in the Gulf of Maine. It furtherstated that the continuation of the Atlantic salmon aquaculture industry depends op eliminatingthe threats that the industry poses to endangered wild Atlantic salmon (67 FR 34428, May 14,2002). Activities acceptable for funding include the following: (1) development of more securemarine cages to reduce farmed fish escapement; (2) developnient of broodstock strains that growquicker, better resist disease, or pose less genetic threat to North American wild salmon stocks;(3) development of improved marks or tags to trace potential escapes of farmed fish; (4)development of vaccines or other methods to prevent the spread of disease between farmed fishand wild salmon; and (5) development of improved methods to monitor sea cage integrity andfarmed fish diseases. Research towards these goals could result in improvements in Maine’ssalmon aquaculture industry and reduce impacts to the GOM DPS.

g. ESA Section 10 Permits

Regulations developed under Section 10 of the ESA allow for “take” of listed species for thepurposes of scientific research and recovery actions. Since the ESA listing, four separateapplications for permits to perform scientific research and/or recovery actions on the GOM DPSof Atlantic salmon have been submitted to the USFWS. All four permits have subsequently beenissued. These permits cover the river-specific hatchery and stocking program of the USFWS,research and monitoring activities of the ASC, research activities of the NOAA Fisheries, andresearch conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division.

All of these activities can result in some level of take of Atlantic salmon. A certain amount ofmortality is expected as a result of many of these activities, particularly with respect to fishculture. Harassment and stress may also occur as a result of capture and release activities. Thesepermitted activities, while resulting in some take, will result in additional scientific information,improved fish dulture and assessment techniques, a greater understanding of the species and itshabitat, and will also collectively promote recovery of the species. Most of the “take” associatedwith these salmon recovery actions will be an integral consequence of these actions, rather thanincidental to them. There are, however, occasions wherein take will be considered incidental(e.g., habitat improvements, sampling for other species such as invertebrates, and construction orplacement of in-river weirs). The USFWS has authorized incidental take of salmon, related tovarious recovery actions, within the GOM DPS for any given year not to exceed 2% of the lifestage being impacted, except that for adults, it would be less than 1%.

Page48 of 101

9. Aquaculture

Atlantic salmon that escape from marine aquaculture facilities and freshwater hatcheries thatsupply these marine facilities pose a threat to native Atlantic salmon populations in coastalMaine rivers. The threat posed by commercially-cultured salmon is increased by the fact that theindustry currently uses fish that are not native to North America. Escapement and resultantinteractions with native stocks continue under current aquaculture practices. There is substantialdocumentation that escaped farmed salmon disrupt redds of wild salmon, compete with wild fishfor food and habitat, interbreed with wild salmon (disrupting local adaptations), degrade benthichabitat, and transfer disease or parasites (Fleming et al. 2000; Clifford etal. 1998; Youngson etal. 1993; Webb et at. 1993; Windsor and Hutchinson 1990; Saunders 1991). There is also aconcern with potential interactions when wild adult salmon migrate near closely spacedaquaculture cages, creating the potential for behavioral interactions, disease transfer orinteractions with predators [Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) 1999; Crozier 1993;Saegrov et at. 1997; Can et at. 1997; Lura and Saegrov 1991]. Examples of these adverseimpacts to wild salmon are discussed in more detail below, as well as a brief history of theServices’ involvement with the aquaculture industry.

a. Background

Since the beginning of the salmon aquaculture industry in Maine in the mid-1980s, the Serviceshave opposed the use of reproductively-viable European strains (pure and hybrid) of Atlanticsalmon within North America. The Services’ continued opposition is based on genetic studiesthat demonstrate that there are significant thfference~ between North American and EuropeanAtlantic salmon [National Resource Council (NRC) 2002, and references therein], and on the

• fact that interbreeding among genetically-divergent populations will negatively impact naturalpopulations (e.g., Utter et at., 1993; Verspoor 1997;Youngson and Verspoor 1998). Theintrogression by non-North American stocks presents a substantial threat to the genetic integrityof North American stocks and threatens fitness through outbreeding depression.

Atlantic salmon that either escaped or were released from aquaculture facilities have been foundin Maine rivers (USASAC 1996; 1997). In October 1998, a Code of Practice for the ResponsibleContainment of Farmed Atlantic Salmon in Maine Waters was adopted by the MAA and itsmember farms. This Code was predicated on a risk management approach and sought tominimize potential interactions, between wild salmon and escaped fanned salmon. The Servicesare not aware of monitoring results of that Code but note that escapees continue to bedocumented in the GOM DPS through 2002.

When the proposed listing of Atlantic salmon as a threatened species was withdrawn in 1997 (62FR 66325, Dec. 18, 1997), the Services believed that certain restrictions on the importation anduse of foreign salmon stocks were in place and being enforced. In 1991, Maine State Law (PL1991 c381 subsection 2) was passed restricting the importation of fish and eggs. However, thelaw failed to restrict the importation of European milt, thus enabling expansion of the use ofhybrids between European and North American salmon in aquaculture. Some ACOE permit

Page 49 of 101

holders continued to use European strains or hybrids despite their commitment not to do so whenobtaining permits (permit applicants signed a statement indicating that no European strains orhybrids would be placed in cages). Once the Services learned that the industry was still usingnon-North American strains, the concern with the risks inherent in wild stocks interacting withaquaculture escapees was significantly increased.

In 1997 and 1998, the Services worked with the aquaculture industry and state representatives inan attempt to eliminate further importation of European stocks, remove pure European strain fishfrom marine aquaculture cages, and phase out the holding ~f North American/European hybrids.This effort was unsuccessful. In July of 1999, the Services initiated discussion directly withDMR. These discussions were only partially successful and did not result in any furtherregulation at the state level or the implementation of any protective measures by the aquacultureindustry in Maine. In addition, permits had still not been issued by the EPA under the CleanWater Act to limit the discharge of pollutants from these aquaculture facilities.

In May of 2001, Maine’s three largest aquaculture companies signed an agreement with severalconservation groups pledging to strengthen fish containment and husbandry practices. Theagreement is voluntary but is intended to allow for continuous improvement in the containmentof farmed salmon and for the development of a mandatory, enforceable ContainmentManagement System for Maine salmon farmers. Representatives from the MAA, state andfederal agencies, and conservation groups formed a steering committee to provide advice anddirection on a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant to the MAA that addressescontainment issues and fish marking techniques. The steering committee reviews ihe work oftwo groups, the Containment Audit Working Group and the Marking Working Group. Thesegroups have developed a containment audit policy based on a Hazard Analysis Critical ControlPoint model and are testing various options for marking aquaculture fish.

b. Documentation of Escapes from Marine Aquaculture Facilities

Based on the information presented below, and on the previously cited evidence regardingimpacts of escapees, it is the Services’ opinion that the escape of aquaculture salmon into theGOM DPS has had a negative effect on wild salmon and that this effect will likelycontinue intpthe future. In order to evaluate the past and future effects of aquaculture escapes on wild salmon,the Services requested that the ACOE provide information from each aquaculture company onpast escape events. The following table (Table 2) summarizes the information that was receivedfrom the ACOE for this Section 7 consultation:

Page50of 101

Table 2. Summary of Aquaculture Fish Escapees Provided to the Services.*

1994 13,403 0 0

1995 14,391 Unknown # at one site 0

1996 12,163 0 0

1997 41,107 1 1

1998 0 0 0

1999 0 8,633 0

2000 22,315 99,758 11,559

2001 0 16,021 20,725

*Thjs table is based on incomplete reports from the indusby of escape events and therefore does not represent a complete history of anescapes throughout the history of the industry in Maine. Zeros do not necessarily mean that no escape(s) occurred that year, but instead that nonewere reported.

The information in Table 2 is not a complete historical summary of aquaculture fish escapes frommarine cages in Maine. For example, some of the companies reported that they have no recordsof escape events prior to the present ownership or management (e.g., some companies have norecords prior to 1999). Furthermore, no records were provided of any escape events prior to1994; however, other records show that aquaculture escapees were found in Maine rivers prior to1994 (see below). Despite their incompleteness, these records clearly establish that tens ofthousands of aquaculture salmon have escaped from Maine facilities since 1994 and continue toescape under the most current aquaculture practices. As demonstrated below, there is substantialevidence that, where these aquaculture facilities exist, there are substantial escape events and thata portion of the escaped fish make their way into river systems.

Atlantic salmon from marine aquaculture facilities have been found in the Union, St. Croix,Penobscot, Dennys, East Machias, and Narraguagus Rivers (USASAC 1995-2002). The Dennys,East Machias, and Narraguagus Rivers have persistent, naturally remnant populations of Atlanticsalmon that are part of the GOM DPS. Escaped aquaculture salmon have also been documentedin the recreational fishery and observed in the Boyden, Hobart, and Pennamaquan Rivers (allstreams that flow into Cobscook Bay, where 26 ofthe 42 farm sites in the Maine industry arecurrently located). The first documented incidence of adult aquaculture salmon in Maine riversoccurred in 1990 when 14 of 83 (17%).of the rod catch in the East Machias River were of marineaquaculture origin. In 1993, there were an estimated 20 marine aquaculture strays and 13 wildsalmon in the Dennys River (61% of the run was aquaculture escapees)~ In 1994 and 1997,escaped aquaculture salmon represented 89% (48 of 54) and 100% (2 of 2), respectively, of thedocumented run for the Dennys River. In 2001, three or four superimposed redds weredocumented in the Dennys River, which had been constructed either by aquaculture escapees orreleased captive-reared broodstock, in the short stretch of suitable spawning habitat between theweir and tidewater (USASAC 2002).

Page5lof 101

Aquaculture fish have also been reported by anglers in the Dennys and Ea~t Machias Rivers since1995. In 1999, 23 (64%) of•the fish captured in a trap in the St. Croix River were of aquacultureorigin; 63 (91%) of the fish captured in the Union River wefe aquaculture fish; and three of thefish trapped in the Narraguagus River were commercially cultured. In 2001, 65 of 83 (78%) ofthe fish captured in the Dennys River and 58 of 77 (75%) in the St. Croix were aquacultureescapees (USASAC Annual Report 2002/14). In 2002, four of the six returns to the DennysRiver (67%) were of suspected aquaculture origin (ASC 2002 Trap Catch Statistics).

Beginning in 1996, sexually-mature escapees have been documented annually in Maine rivers.In the St. Croix River, 17 escapees were examined in September 1998 and five (30%) exhibitedevidence of sexual maturation. In 1999, all three escapees in the Narraguagus River weresexually mature males (USASAC Annual Report 2000/12). In 2001 in the Dennys River, four ofthe 16 female escapees examined were sexually mature and one of the seven male escapeesexamined wassexually mature (USASAC Annual Report 2002/14).

Currently, there are fish weirs or traps located on three GOM DPS rivers (Pleasant, Narraguagus,and Dennys) that have remnant salmon populations. A weir is essentially a fence that is designedto lead the fish into a net or pound where they are captUred (Baum 1997). These weirs and trapsare used by state and federal fishery agencies to collect biological infonnation about Atlanticsalmon populations and, since the development of a salmon aquaculture industry in Maine, toprevent aquaculture escapees from entering Maine salmon streams and adversely affecting wildsalmon. Aquaculture escapees are currently identified at the weirs by fisheries biologists usingscale reading and physical characteristics such as fin deformities and body shape and size. Aseasonal. weir is placed each year on the Dennys River at the head of tide in Dennysville, Maineand on the Pleasant River in Columbia Falls, Maine just upstream of the Route 1 Bridge. These•two A-frame weirs both started operation in the spring of 2000. These weirs are designed to:capture.adult salmon migrating upstream, while allowing downstream migrating fish to passfreely.

Prior to 2000, other types of temporary weirs (e.g., picket, floating, and resistance board) weresometimes placed on the Dennys, Pleasant and Sheepscot Rivers. These types of weirs aregenerally less effective in capturing fish than the current A-frame weirs. During periods whenthese older weirs were compromised, salmon may have gained upstream access (includingaquaculture escapees). A fishway trap is located at the ice dam on the Narraguagus River inCherryfield; this trap has been operated since 1991. Salmon have been observed jumping overthe ice dam, so the fish trap is not considered 100% effective at intercepting upstream migratingsalmon (USASAC 1996). The weirs and traps are generally in place and operating from mid-spring until the late fall of each year, although the dates can vary from year to year. The Servicesare currently evaluating options for placing a weir on the East Macbias River; placement of aweir here is important due to the potential for aquaculture escapees from fish farms in MachiasBay to enter this GOM DPS river.

Although weirs are a useful tool for tracking GOM DPS salmon and reducing the number ofaquaculture escapees that interact with GOM DPS salmon, there are some drawbacks to theirplacement in the rivers. The design and location of the weirs is intended to minimize any threats

Page52of 101

that may occur from excess handling, predators, and the possibility of excluding a fish fromupstream passage to spawning habitat. Nevertheless, these threats will continue to exist, at someminimal level, as long as the weirs are in place. Interference with upstream fish passage andhandling are the most significant known threats to adult migrating salmon associated with weirs.Adult salmon have been documented entering and then leaving a weir on their own, perhaps

never to return to the weir (i.e., those adult fish were potentially prohibited from reachingupstream spawning habitat and reproducing). Although uncommon, biologists in Maine havemistakenly identified a wild fish as an aquaculture fish and have returned the. fish downstream ofthe weir rather than allowing the fish upstream passage. Handling adds additional stress to adultsalmon, which can result in mortality or increased susceptibility to disease or predation,especially when water temperatures are high. A fish may be handled several times in the attemptto capture the fish and positively identify its origin. Lastly, wild and aquaculture salmon can bepresent in weirs at the same time, increasing the risk of disease transfer from fanned salmon tothe GOM DPS. For the time being, fisheries biologists have determined that the benefits oflearning more about the status of the GOM DPS and reducing interactions with aquacultureescapees outweigh the risks inherent in the use of weirs.

In Atlantic Canada, most aquaculture occurs in the lower Bay of Fundy, where there are anestimated 60facilities. Although reports of large-scale escapes are rare, in 1994 between 20,000and 40,000 fish escaped from an aquaculture facility in New Brunswick, a number that was equalto the total estimated wild salmon return in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Since theaquaculture industry began in the Canadian Maritimes in 1979, escapees have been documentedin 14 rivers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (DFO 1999). The Magaguadavic River inCanada is monitored for interactions between wild and commercially-culture fish. In at least twoyears, over 90% of the adults entering this river were of aquaculture origin. Escapees fromCanadian fish farms, particularly those from Passamaquoddy Bay and the Bay of Fundy, arelikely to enter Maine rivers and thus may have contributed to the current endangered status of theAtlantic salmon.

A study in Norway (Heggberget et al. 1993) documented farmed. Atlantic salmon migratingdistances of 15-90 km from the point of intentional release. Bergan et al. (1991) reported that theproportion of escapees in riVers near fish farms (less than 20 1cm) was higher than in other rivers.Recent evidence suggests that escaped Atlantic salmon are capable of swimming significantdistances from their marine pen sites in the Pacific Ocean (Volpe et al. 2000). The northern limitof Atlantic salmon aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest is the northern tip of Vancouver Island,British Columbia (approximately lat 5 1°N); both marine and freshwater recoveries of Atlanticsalmon are now well documented in Alaska, at least 300 miles away.

Table 3 gives approximate distances of existing farm sites from GOM DPS river mouths inMaine. These distances represent those sites (within each of the bays that currently containaquaculture farms) that are the closest and farthest distance from a GOM DPS river.

.Page53of 101

Table 3. Approximate Distance of Existing Farm Sites from GOM DPS River Mouths inMaine.

Hi-Cobscook Bay 13 km Dennys River

G2-Cobscook Bay 25 km Dennys River

L1-Machias Bay 9.5 km Machias River

L4-Macbias Bay 21 km Machias River

B7-Pleasant Bay 7 km Pleasant River

L2-Pleasant Bay 26 km Pleasant River

B6-Pleasant Bay 7 1cm Narraguagus River

L2-Pleasant Bay 30 km Narraguagus River

D3-East Penobscot Bay 87 km Cove Brook

Ai-East Penobscot Bay 93 km Cove Brook

D3-East Penobscot Bay 50 km Ducktrap River

Al-East Penobscot Bay 65 km Ducktrap River

Ml -Sheepscot River within waters Sheepscot River

There is little information available to evaluate the distances that escaped farmed salmon havemoved in Maine because 1) aquaculture fish have not been marked, either in Maine or Canada;and 2) reporting of escape events has not been required. However, the Services know that 1)aquaculture fish have been detected in several Maine rivers, and 2) all existing farm sites arelocated in bays proximal to GOM DPS rivers. Despite the lack of specific information on themovements of Maine aquaculture salmon escapees, based on the studies of Heggberget et aL,Bergan et al., and Volpe et al., in combination with the distances of Maine salmon farms fromGOM DPS rivers, the Services are confident that escapees from Maine sites have entered GOMDPS rivers, including those without weirs or traps.

c. Hatchery Escapement

There are currently five commercial hatcheries in Maine that supply juvenile salmon for grow-out in cage sites in Maine, as well as Canada. Two commercial hatcheries are located within theAtlantic salmon GOM DPS (Heritage Salmon hatcheries in East Machias, Maine at GardnerLake and in Deblois, Maine). Cases of chronic and large escapements from freshwater hatcheriesin Maine have been documented and are discussed further below. A relationship has beendemonstrated between the reproductive success .of cultured fish and the amount of time that thefish has lived in nature before reaching sexual maturity (i.e., better reproductive success if the

PageS4oflOl

escaped fish have lived longer in a stream) (Jonsson 1997). Consequently, the Services believethat escapees from freshwater hatcheries may pose a larger threat to wild populations thanescapees from marine cage sites. The earliest life stages of fish (such as sac fry) that mightescape from hatcheries, however, are not likely to survive cold river temperatures (David Bean,pers. comm.).

Interactions (i.e., competition for food and habitat) between escaped hatchery juveniles and wildsalmon, particularly in the East Machias and Pleasant Rivers, are reasonably certain to haveoccurred and to have negatively contributed to the current status of the GOM DPS. Furthermore,genetic testing of juvenile Atlantic salmon collected in the Pleasant and East Machias Rivers hasidentified fish with genotypes indicative of European origin. These fish would have been eitherescapees from the industry hatchery in the watershed, the offspring of an aquaculture escapee thatentered the rivers and spawned, or the offspring of a juvenile hatchery escapee that later maturedand spawned as either a precocious male parr or a returning adult. Genetic introgression wouldhave resulted from fish that are a product of interbreeding between GOM DPS salmon andaquaculture escapees. When genetically divergent populations (e.g., GOM DPS salmon andaquaculture escapees) interbreed, the resulting progeny may be less fit than their parents becauseof the loss of local adaptations. The loss of fitness incurred by the affected individuals is termedoutbreeding depression. Outbreeding depression is more likely to occur when interbreeding isbetween genetically differentiated populations, such as when a hatchery broodstock is from nonlocal sources [Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) 2002].

In 1999, the NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center monitored the outmigration ofsmolts on the Pleasant River using a rotary screw smolt trap deployed near the head of tide inColumbia Falls, Maine. A total of 676 smolts were captured between April 22 and May 29; 31smolts (approximately 5%) were observed with fin deformities, coloration and body formsuggesting that they were from freshwater hatcheries (aquaculture fish generally display thesecharacteristics due to the conditions of rearing in the freshwater hatchery). Scale samples andtissue samples for DNA analysis were also collected. Based on additional information providedby scale pattern analysis and genetic assignment test, it was subsequently determined thatapproximately 20-25% of the 1999 smolt run in the Pleasant River was of commercial hatcheryorigin. Following the capture of these fish, electrofishing surveys were conducted within BeaverMeadow Brook at the outflow of the Deblois hatchery. Cursory electrofishing surveysdocumented 87 salmon parr near the vicinity of the hatchery outflow. It should be noted that thehatchery is located at the upstream end of Beaver Meadow Brook (which does not have salmonhabitat) and that the nearest reach of the Pleasant River is dead water habitat (i.e., unsuitable).This information led the Maine Atlantic Salmon Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) toconclude that hatchery-origin Atlantic salmon are escaping into the Pleasant River drainage fromthe Deblois hatchery, and that the escaped fish represent a threat to the remnant Atlantic salmonpopulations in the Pleasant River drainage (TAC 2000). Subsequent improvements were made atthe Deblois hatchery to address escapement, including the addition of filters and screens.

Since 1989, annual population assessments conducted by ASC fishery scientists on Chase MillStream, a tributary to the East Machias River, have resulted in the capture of suspectedaquaculture salmon in the vicinity of a private aquaculture hatchery discharge (Heritage Salmon

Page 55 of 101

Inc. hatchery at Gardner Lake). These fish are frequently characterized by deformed fins andoccasionally by their large size, compared to wild parr. Until 1999, no attempt was made toassess the origin of these fish. In October 1999, Chase Mill Stream was specifically electrofishedin the vicinity of the hatchery outlet and 28 suspected aquaculture-origin salmon were collected(USASAC 2000/12). Subsequent improvements were also made at the Gardner Lake hatchery toaddress escapement, including the addition of filters and screens.

In recent years the annual production of smolts for the Gardner Lake hatchery has beenapproximately one million. Heritage Salmon has not produced smolts at the Deblois hatcherysince 2001. Furthermore, the lease on the Deblois facility will not be continued by HeritageSalmon beyond its expiration in 2004 (Kaelin, 11/8/02). Recent improvements (e.g., installationof drum filter and screens) have been made at both of these hatcheries to help minimizeescapement. Moreover, the industry has developed a hatchery management system that includesa Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point .(HA,ACP)-based plan for each hatchery that follows thehatchery production cycle from arrival of eggs to smolt transport. The effectiveness of HAACPplans, filters, and screens in eliminating escapes from the two hatcheries has not been fullyanalyzed at this time. Escapes of juvenile salmon from hatcheries could still occur fromcatastrophic events (e.g., floods, icing of the water intake, and power outages). Escapement ofjuvenile aquaculture salmon from hatcheries into GOM DPS river watersheds could negativelycontribute to the status of the GOM DPS, although with recent hatchery improvements, escapeevents are much less likely to occur.

d. Interactions between Aquaculture Escapees and Wild Salmon in Rivers

Detailed discussion of the impacts of escaped aquaculture salmon on wild populations is.included below to support the conclusion that escapees have negatively affected the status of theGOM DPS. This subject is presented in more detail in this opinion because of the relationship ofthis subject to the proposed action (i.e., many of the aquaculture-related factors contributing tothe current status of the GOM DPS will continue to have an adverse effect on wild salmon in thefuture, even after adding the proposed conditions to existing permits).

Experimental tests of genetic divergence between farmed and wild, salmon indicate that farminggenerates rapid genetic changes as a result of both intentional and unintentional’ selection incultUre and that those changes alter important fitness-related traits (McGinnity et al. 1997; Gross1998). The changes have been identified as a threat to wild populations when cultured fishescape and subsequently compete and breed with wild salmon (Hindar et al. 1991; fleming andBinum 1997). Genetic interactions between wild and farmed fish can disrupt local adaptations,threaten stock viability and character, and lower recruitment (DFO 1999; Einum and Fleming1997; Fleming and Einum 1997; Grant 1997; Saegrov et al. 1997).

Genetic studies demonstrate that there are significant differences between’North American andEuropean Atlantic salmon (NRC 2002, and references therein), and most geneticists believe thatinterbreeding among genetically divergent populations negatively impacts natural populations(e.g., Utter et al. 1993; Verspoor 1997; Youngson and Verspoor 1998). Mork (1991)characterized the potential permanent effect of one generation “burst” immigrations (i.e., when

Page56of 101

large numbers of fish escape from farms near spawning rivers) on the genetic differentiationamong wild stocks. He reported that small Atlantic salmon populations may be most vulnerableto burst immigrations, and that these events could be the most significant way in which farmedsalmon affect the genetic structure of wild populations. Natural selection may be able to purgewild populations of maladaptive traits, but may be less able to do so if the intrusions occurregularly year after year. Under this scenario, wild population fitness is likely to decrease as theselection from the artificial culture operation overrides wild selection (Fleming and Binum 1997;Hindar et aL 1991).

The following paragraphs describe studies from Europe and Canada demonstrating geneticinteractions and bompetition between wild and escaped aquaculture Atlantic salmon. Similarstudies on genetic and behavioral interactions have not yet been conducted in Maine. However,given the knowledge that aquaculture fish do escape from Maine marine pens and subsequentlyenter Maine GOM DPS rivers, conclusions from these European and Canadian studies can beused to analyze how aquaculture escapees are likely to have affected the currentS status of theGOM DPS.

Analysis of carotenoid pigments in eggs taken from the Magaguadavic River in New Brunswickin 1993 revealed that at least 20% of the redds were constructed by females that werecommercially cultured and another 35% were of possible commercially-cultured origin (Can etal. 1997). A study in the River Vosso, western Norway, examined synthetic astaxanthin (anadditive to commercial fish feed) in offspring of fish. The study found that nine (45%) of the 20female spawners in the sample were of confirmed farmed origin. Eggs from two of the farmedfemales showed that they had escaped recently and had entered the river and spawned beforeingesting much natural food. Seven of the farmed females spawned eggs that indicated thefemales had ingested natural food for a prolonged period, indicating that they lived in the oceanfor some time before entering the river to spawn. The study concluded that it is likely that all ofthe three-year classes of Atlantic salmon, which dominated the parr stock in this river in 1996,had more than 50% farmed female contribution. This study concluded that the effect of farmedescapees was dramatic and that the original stock was being gradually replaced by farmed salmon(Saegrov et al. 1997).

A multi-year study (1992-1995) was conducted in a natural tributary of the Burrishoole Riversystem in western Ireland to compare the performance of wild, farmed, and hybrid Atlanticsalmon progeny. Survival of progeny of farmed fish to the smolt stage was significantly lowerthan that of wild salmon. The progeny of farmed fish, however, grew faster and displaced nativefish downstream (McGinnity a al. 1997). This study demonstrated that both farmed fish andhybrids can survive in the wild. It also indicates that escaped farmed salmon can produce long-term genetic changes in natural populations (McGinnity a aL 1997). The authors caution thatrepeated intrusions of escaped farmed salmon will depress smolt productivity in a cumulativefashion, potentially creating an extinction vortex, i.e., an inescapable downward spiral inpopulation numbers.

Page 57 of 101

Fleming a al. (2000) undertook a large-scale experiment in order to quantify the lifetime successand interactions of farm salthon invading a Norwegian river. Sexually mature farm and nativesalmon were genetically screened, radio-tagged and released into the River Tmsa where no othersalmon had been allowed to ascend. The farm fish were competitively and reproductivelyinferior, with this inferiority more pronounced in farm males thaif in females. There were alsoindications of selection against fann genotypes during early survival of offspring of releasedadults, but not thereafter. Evidence of resource competition and competitive displacementexisted, as the productivity of the native population was depressed by more than 30%. There wasalso considerable overlap in the diets of native; farmed, and hybrid offspring. Results indicatedthat such annual invasioris have the potential for impacting population productivity, disruptinglocal adaptations, and reducing the genetic diversity of wild salmon populations. The nativepopulation will eventually be composed of individuals that have all descended from the migrants.Thus, farm salmon compete well against wild fish in the short term. Furthermore, even thoughfarm fish may be competitively and reproductively inferior in the long term, repeated intrusionsof escapes from new year classes of farm fish will result in genetic introgression.

Hindar et al. (1991) stated that the effects of gene flow can be reduced by assuring that thegenetic differences between escaped fish and recipient wild populations are as small as possible.The authors further indicated that one way to achieve this objective of minimal differences is tostrive for aquaculture programs that are based on local salmon populations. This approach willnot prevent the cultured stocks from becoming increasingly different from their wild ancestors,because of selective breeding within the aquaculture industry and the inevitable process ofdomestication. It will, however, prevent the introduction of highly exotic genes into local wildpopulations.

Farmed salmon in Scandanavian countries have been documented to spawn successfully, butlater in the season than wild salmon (Lura and Saegrov 1991; Jonsson et al. 1991), a factor thatincreases the potential for limiting the success of wild spawners through redd superimposition.Superimposition occurs when an existing redd is overlaid with eggs from a later spawning fish.Redds can suffer egg mortality (e.g., the eggs can be dislodged from the gravel) when new reddsare superimposed on top of the existing redd. Lura and Saegrov (1991) observed farmed femalesdestroying the redds of wild salmon (i.e., superimposition in an effort tc create new redds). It isreasonably certain that at least some aquaculture escapees from Maine salmon farms haveexhibited the same behavior, disrupting redds and therefore reducing the reproductive success ofGOM DPS salmon. Redd disruption is of particular concern due to the very low numbers ofredds observed in GOM DPS rivers over the last few years (e.g., redd counts in 2002 in each ofthe eight GOM DPS rivers ranged from a low of 0 to a high of six redds; in 2001 from 0 to 71redds; and in 2000 from one to 60 redds). These redd counts do not necessarily represent acomplete count of all redds in each watershed but are useful in establishing trends and serve asthe best available scientific information.

Aquaculture escapees occur annually in Maine rivers (see Table 4 in Section VI) and geneticanalysis of juvenile Atlantic salmon collected from five of the GOM DPS rivers has identified

Page58of 101

fish with genotypes indicative of European origin (Dave Perkins, pers. comm.). For at least threeof these rivers without aquaculture hatcheries, the European-origin fish must have been theoffspring of aquaculture escapees that spawned in the river with either wild fish or otherescapees. Given the prevalence of Atlantic salmon introgression observed in rivers outside theU.S., indications of spawning by escapees in the GOM DPS rivers are not unexpected. Based onthe scientific literature, along with the presence of escapees and putative offspring in the GOMDPS rivers, the Services have concluded that escapes from the Maine aquaculture industryconstitute an existing and imminent threat to the GOM DPS through genetic interactions.

e. Diseases and Parasites

Transmission from farms to local wild stocks

Migrating GOM DPS Atlantic salmon can be exposed to and infected by close proximity todiseased aquaculture sites or infected by escaped farmed salmon (DFO 1999). The greatestdisease risk to both farmed and wild stocks is through the introduction of exotic pathogens intoareas where local stock have no innate resistance, or through amplification of endemicpathogens. Serious epizootics’ of furunculosis and Gyrodactylus salaris in stocks of salmon inScotland indicate the severe consequences of new disease outbreaks linked to movements of livefish for farming or restocking purposes (McVicar 1997). This epizootic of furunculosis inScotland became a severe problem in farmed Atlantic salmon during the latter part of the 1980s.In view of the fact that the .furunculosis bacterium can spread up to a radius of 10 km from cagesites, it is highly probable that local stocks of wild fish were being regularly exposed to theinfection during that period (McVicar 1997). Transfer of furunculosis from farmed salmon towild salmon in Norwegian rivers has been documented (DFO 1999). Yet another example of adisease transmitted from a farm to a local wild stock is the spread of Infectious PancreaticNecrosis virus from a heavily infected freshwater rainbow trOut farm into neighboring stocks ofwild fish, including salmon, up to 7 km away (McVicar 1997). Although transmission of diseasefrom Maine salmon farms to the GOM DPS has not been detected, these examples of diseasetransfer from farmedto wild salmon in other countries clearly demonstrate the risk to the GOMDPS.

Sea Lice

Control of disease outbreaks within farms has markedly improvedin recent years, reducing therisk of farms being a focus or multiplier of locally occurring diseases, but problems still remainwith some diseases and parasites, particularly sea lice. Lice from salmon farms contribute to licepopulations in wild salmonids,but the extent and consequences of this have not been quantified(McVicar 1997). Outmigrating salmon may acquire sea lice infestations if they migrate close toinfected salmon aquaculture facilities. •For adult salmon returning to their natal streams tospawn, the threat is likely lower. As soon as the fish enters freshwater, sea lice die and fall off.In Norway, the level of sea lice infestation on wild fish in some areas where Atlantic salmon

1M epizootic is a disease affecting a greater number of individuals than normal; typically epizooticsinvolve many individuals in the same region at the same time. -

Page59of 101

farming is concentrated has been found to be ten times greater than in areas where there are nofarms (NASCO 1993). A study by Jacobsen and Gaard (1997) also observed sea lice on wild andescaped farmed salmon in open ocean feeding grounds in the Norwegian Sea. It is possible thatescaped farm salmQn transfer increasing numbers of sea lice to wild salmon in the open ocean.Unfortunately, no historic infestation data are available from the high seas to help answer thisquestion (Jacobsen and Gaard 1997). Sea lice affect fish by degrading their ~rotective mucouslayer and making them more susceptible to secondary infection or infestation by other parasites,thereby reducing fitness of the host. High densities of sea lice can cause direct mortality to thehost. While sea lice are commonly present in low numbers in wild stocks, their presence rarelycauses mortality or severe pathological effects (such as experienced on commercial aquaculturefarms). Risks to the GOM DPS from transfer of sea lice from aquaculture salmon raised inMaine net pens is reduced by sea lice treatments at fish pens to control outbreaks. In view of thefact that new management plans (in effect as of spring 2002) require farm sites in Maine to liefallow between each production cycle, disrupting the sea lice life cycle, this risk should lie furtherreduced in the future.

ISAV

In Maine, the recent outbreak of ISAV in Cobscook Bay and the close proximity of several fishfanns to GOM DPS rivers raises concerns about wild salmon declines in the marineenvironment. The ISA virus has been found in wild salmon in Scotland (Raynard et aL 2001), aswell as in confined rainbow trout, wild sea trout, and eels (65 FR 69469, Nov. 17, 2000). Therehas been one documented case of wild salmon exhibiting ISAV in Canada, but these wild fishwere confined for a period in a trapping facility with infected aquaculture salmon (Whoriskey1999).

In response to the recent outbreaks of ISAV at finfish aquaculture facilities, the Maine DMR hasimplemented new fish health regulations. The DMR’s rules include mandatory surveillance andreporting of all testing results for ISAV in Cobscook Bay; sites with a confirmed case of ISAVare automatically subject to a remedial action plan developed by the DMR. Vessel andequipment movement is also restricted. Prior to the rule changes, surveillance was notmandatory and reporting for the disease was only required when either active or passivesurveillance identified a confirmed case of the disease. Sampling is now conducted monthly forall active finfish facilities in the state. The new rules expand the DMR’s authority to take actionnot only at infected facilities, but at those exposed to ISAV as well. These rules require theDMR to consult with all relevant state and federal entities with expertise in ISAV control.

On December 18, 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health• Inspection Service (APHIS) implemented an ISAV indemnity, surveillance, biosecurity, andepidemiological research program for farm-raised fish in the United States. Participation in thisprogram is mandatory for all salmon growers and covers all salmon finfish farms in the state.USDA’s goal is to control and contain the disease through rapid detection and depopulation ofsalmon that have been infected with or exposed to ISAV. The APR18 program is beinginterfaced with the State of Maine’s husbandry and bay management program that is beingimplemented via the DMR’s authority described in the fish health regulations above.

Pageó0of 101

On January 7, 2002, the DMR and the APHIS ordered the eradication of up to 1.5 million salmonlocated in seven aquaculture facilities in Cobscook Bay that were infected with or exposed to theISAV. The January 2002 order followed the earlier removal of over one million ISAV-exposedfish by the aquaculture industry, as directed by the DMR. The fish were removed fromCobsëook Bay and the entire bay was fallowed for ninety-two days. The fallowing involved theremoval of all the fish and the cleaning and disinfection of all the associated net pens, barges, andequipment at all the farms. The equipment was cleaned and disinfected by high pressure steam,either at the facility or off site. All cleaning and disinfection were authorized and supervised bythe APR15 program. Additional surveillance by the APH1S and the DMR includes tracking ofthe following: the dispersion of the virus in the water column; the attenuation of the virus onsurfaces overtime; and the environmental distribution of the virus in the water column,sediments, alternative species, and sea lice.

The DMR, working directly with the aquaculture industry, developed a comprehensive programof husbandry and management practices, to restock Cobscook Bay in the spring of 2002 and2003. DMR’s husbandry program requires that bay management areas be created for all finfishfacilities; i.e., all farms within a bay management area must abide by standards that 1) requirefanns to be stocked with only one year class of fish, 2) limit the capacity of bays and individualfarms impacted by ISAV, 3) mandate fallowing between production cycles, and 4) govern thedensity and stocking procedures for individual farms. Cobscook Bay was divided into twomanagement areas: only the southern portion of the bay was stocked in 2002 (and will be stockedin even years thereafter); the nérthern portion was empty until spring 2003. In 2002 and 2003,fish farms in the bay were stocked with approximately 25% less fish than there were historically;it is unknown at this time whether this reductipn in stocking level will continue into the future.The DMR’s bay management program is being developed following an evaluation of other ISAVcontrol programs in New Brunswick, Canada; Scotland; and Norway. These jurisdictions havedeveloped control programs that have been successful in minimizing further outbreaks of thedisease.

The new programs developed by the APIIIS and the DIvER to address outbreaks of ISAV in theaquaculture industry should reduce the threat of this disease to wild salmon. Amplification ‘ofendemic diseases, such as ISAV, poses a threat to wild populations of salmon, but continuedsurveillance and monitoring programs should reduce the risk of future outbreaks within theaquaculture industry and therefore reduce the risk of transmission of ISAV to wild salmon.Furthermore, the U.S. is working with Canada on joint strategies for managing TSAV,recognizing the importance of working together on issues affecting a common water body.

Although ISAV has not been observed to be a problem for wild stocks, the Services areconcemedthat ISAV will directly affect pre-spawning adults. More studies and tests need to beconducted on wild and aquaculture fish to look at existence of and trends in disease prevalence.Intensifying ISAV surveillance, avoiding future outbreaks, improving containment of aquaculturefish, and maintaining healthy, disease-free fish farms should reduce the disease risk thataquaculture salmon pose to wild stocks. ISAV and other diseases and parasites probably havenot had much of an impact on the current status of the GOM DPS but remain a threat.

PagS6lof 101

f. Salmonids Other than Atlantic Salmon

Some of the ACOE permits included in this action authorize the permittees to culture salmonidspecies other than Atlantic salmon. Salmonid species other than Atlantic salmon that escapefrom private aquaculture operations also pose a threat to wild Atlantic salmon populations.Because other salmonid species would be grown using the same equipment and husbandrypractices as are used for Atlantic salmon, escapement of these other species would be expected.

Crossman (1991) reported the escape of rainbow trout from Canadian aquaculture facilities inNew Brunswick and Newfoundland. Escaped salmonids can adversely impact wild Atlanticsalmon through competition for food and habitat, transfer of disease, and redd superimposition.During the juvenile life stage of various salmonids, similar life histories and habitat preferencescan overlap, creating interspecific competition that could adversely affect growth and survival ofjuvenile Atlantic salmon. Interspecific competition between Atlantic salmon and other salmonidspecies is dependent on a number of factors, including the availability of food and habitat.Ecological interactions between salmonids can lead to increased mortality and decreased growth(Fausch and White 1986).

Early life stages of the Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout are remarkably similar in habitatpreferences, behavior and feeding (Bley and Moring 1988). The rainbow trout is native to thewestern United States and is an introduced species in Maine. In areas where Atlantic salmon andrainbow trout co-occur, significant niche overlap is expected to occur and under limitingcireumstances, vigorous competition for resources is expected (Volpe et aL 2001). At juvenilestages, rainbow trout are likely to significantly interact with Atlantic salmon (Gibson 1981).Interspecific competition during juvenile stages may be an important factor affecting growth andsurvival of Atlantic salmon (Fausch 1988). In ,a study by Volpe et al. (2001), rainbow troutperformance was superior to that of Atlantic salmon. The potential also exists for Atlanticsalmon redds to be superimposed by spring-spawning rainbow trout (Volpe et aL 2001). Thisrisk, however, is reduced considering the biology of the species. Rainbow trout are typically latewinter-early spring. spawners, while Atlantic salmon in Maine typically spawn in the fall (midOctober through mid-November). This difference in spawning timing reduces the risk ofreproductive interference. However, rainbow trout can still superimpose already establishedredds of Atlantic salmon. If the eggs in the Atlantic salmon redds have achieved sufficientdevelopment (such as reaching the eyed-egg stage) at the time of redd superimposition byrainbow trout, the Atlantic salmon eggs would be less susceptible to damage from this disruption,reducing the impact from redd superimposition. Colonization of freshwater habitats withinGOM DPS rivers by rainbow trout, either through intentional stocking or escapement fromaquaculture facilities, could have adverse effects on wild saimon populations. Escapees couldhave a competitive advantage through domestication; selection for higher growth rates andaggressive feeding behaviors would enhance an escapee’s ability to out-compete and displaceresident Atlantic salmon.

Some salmonid strains, including sea trout (Salmon trutta L.) and rainbow trout are known to beasymptomatic carriers of ISAV (Nylund et al. 1997). Escaped or caged rainbow trout may pose a

Page 62 of 101

threat to endangered Atlantic salmon by functioning as a reservoir for ISAV. The virus does notseem to. cause significant mortality of infected rainbow trout (Nylund et aL 1997).

The Services recognize that there has been limited use of other salmonid species by theaquaculture industry in Maine, although site Ml (Pierce Associates, Inc.) has routinely grownrainbow trout in the Sheepscot River. These rainbow trout have been all female triploid (i.e.,sterile) fish. Sterility in fishes includes the induction of a chromosomal abnormality,triploidisation, which can be accomplished in two ways: 1) chemical (anesthetic) and 2) physical(pressure and heat shocking ova), the latter of which is preferred in salmonids (Johnstone 1998).Both techniques are highly variable, and neither is 100% effective (Sutterlin and Collier 1991).Therefore, a single sex population (all female) is used to eliminate the ability to effectively mateand produce offspring (Cotter et at. 2000). In a competition experiment, triploids were lessaggressive than diploid rainbow trout (O’Flynn et at. 1997), which could reduce impacts to wildsalmon through competition for food and space. Furthermore, the Services have no informationon past escape events that may have resulted in other fanned salmonid species entering GOMDPS rivers. Although there is no indication that other aquaculture salmonids have impacted thestatus of the listed salmon to date, use of these fish poses risks similar to those posed by farmedAtlantic salmon, such as competition for food and space, disease transfer, and reddsuperimposition.

g. Clean Water Act Section 402 Permits

Since the listing of Atlantic salmon on November 17, 2000, there have been two formal Section 7consultations completed that focused on impacts to the GOM DPS. One consultation wasbetween the Services and the EPA and concerned the EPA’s proposed approval of the State of.Maine’s application to administer the NPDES permit program. The other related to the issuanceof an EPA NPDES permit authorizing the discharge of pollutants from site A2 (AcadiaAquaculture Inc., Blue Hill Bay, Dunham’s Cove). Based on the proposed permitting proceduresand commitments made by the EPA, the Services were able to conclude that the EPA’s proposedaction could result in take but was not likely to jeopardize the GOM DPS.

State administration of the NPDES program was subsequently approved by the EPA on January12, 2001. Unfortunately, the state has not yet issued any discharge permits to the finfishaquaculture industry and the adverse effects of salmon aquaculture on wild salmon continue tooccur. Furthermore, while the EPA was issued an Incidental Take Statement (iTS) as a result ofthe Section 7 consultation on the NPDES delegation, neither the protective conditions, nor thereasonable and prudent measures and the terms and conditions that are required to exemptSection 9 take prohibitions have been implemented. Consequently, any take of Atlantic salmonthat might have occurred since the permitting program was delegated to the State of Maine wasunauthorized.

On February 21, 2002, the EPA issued a final NPDES permit for Acadia Aquaculture. Thepermit conditions proposed by the EPA to protect Atlantic salmon are similar to the ACOEspecial conditions included in this proposed action. Although this site has both an ACOE permitand a NPDES permit, it does not hold a valid state lease. Since the site has not yet been

Page 63 of 101

developed, it has not yet had an impact on the GOM DPS. Should this site ever be developed,however, the effects of the action are included in the environmental baseline of this opinion,including the analysis of effects of the proposed action and the authorized incidental take.

E. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to. be affected

1. Other ESA Listed ~Species in the Project Area

Following is a discussion of other ESA-listed species present in the project area, along withreasons they are not likely to be adversely affected. These species will not be considered furtherin the consultation. There is no critical habitat designated for any federally-listed species in theproject area.

The federally-threatened bald eagle and the endangered roseate tern (under the jurisdiction ofUSFWS) also occur in the action area. There are several bald eagle nest sites located throughoutCobscook, Machias, Pleasant, and East Penobscot Bays. Bald eagles are also seen in the projectarea throughout the winter season. With the exception of site B 1 (Stone Island), however, noneof the existing farms are located close enough to current bald eagle nest sites to cause adverseeffects to the bald eagle by disturbance or entanglement in nets. To address the impacts of theStone Island net pens on bald eagles, the USFWS completed a formal Section 7 consultation in1997. Roseate terns currently nest on Petit Manan Island, approximately eight miles southwestof Flint Island, the nearest salmon aquaculture facility. There is no evidence to suggest that therewould be any interaction between these terns and the net pens that would impact the tems.Therefore, the USFWS has determined that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affectthe roseate tern or bald eagles, other than those eagles covered in the 1997 opinion, and nofurther consultation related to these species is needed pursuant to the ESA.

There is potential for ESA-listed species under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries, including theNorth Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale and sei whales, leatherback sea turtlesand loggerhead sea turtles, to infrequently transit through Cobscook, Macbias, Pleasant, and EastPenobscot Bays in pursuit of food. It is unlikely that loggerhead turtles, a threatened species,would be found as far north as the project area and in the vicinity of the nearshore marine cages.Despite the presence of marine cages off the coast of Maine for the past twenty years, there areno known entanglements of marine mammals or sea turtles in any marine cage. This. is likely dueto the fact that the gear is very visible to marine mammals and, the fact that the mooring lines arevery taut, posing a low risk of entanglement to marine mammals and sea turtles. The marinecages are set nearshore or inshore, thereby reducing the potential for interaction with thesepredominantly pelagic species. Given the low probability of interaction between the marine cageand marine mammals or sea turtles, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect theAtlantic right whale, humpback whale, fin whale, sei whale, leatherback sea turtle, andloggerhead sea turtle; therefore, no further consultation related to these species is neededpursuant to the ESA.

The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is also a federally-endangered species under thejurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries. Shortnose sturgeon occur in the estuarmne complex formed by

Pageó4of 101

the SheepscOt, Kennebec, and Androscoggin Rivers. A shortnose sturgeon was also captured inthe Penobscot River estuary on June 30, 1978. This capture indicates that a contemporaryshortnose sturgeon population exists in the Penobscot River, as this capture occurred within thegeneration time of the species. Sturgeon may occur in the vicinity of two sites in Penobscot Bay(Al and A2). Site A2 has never been developed, and does not have a valid state lease; therefore,no impacts to sturgeon are expected from this site. A baseline survey for site Al suggests thatthe area is not foraging habitat for sturgeon, therefore sturgeon are unlikely to spend time in thevicinity of site Al.

Shortnose sturgeon are known to occur in the Sheepscot River. Site Ml is the only finfishaquaculture site in the vicinity of the Sheepscot River. Shortnose sturgeon have beendocumented in Montsweag Bay during the summer, and one was entrained in an intake at theMaine Yankee Power Plant (near site Ml) on June 7, 1994. Sturgeon are sensitive to lowdissolved oxygen levels (DO) (<5mgfL). Site Ml is located in an area sturgeon may migratethrough, and it is unlikely at this time that site Al creates low dissolved oxygen levels as it is notstocked regularly or with large amounts of fish. There are plans in the future, however, tomonitor DO at the site. Rainbow trout are currently the only species being raised at site Ml(artic char and brown trout are also authorized, however, Atlantic salmon is not), therefore it is.unlikely that escapes from site Ml, or any of the other sites in the project description, wouldresult in adverse impacts, as sturgeon and rainbow trout behaviors do not overlap, eliminatingimpacts from competition and reproduction. Given the low probability of impacts to sturgeonfrom sites Ml, Al, and A2, and given the fact that the rest of the finfish aquaculture sites arelocated outside of the sturgeon’s range, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect theshortnose sturgeon; therefore, no further consultation related to this species is needed pursuant totheESA.

2. Summary of Current Status ofAtlantic salmon

The Services agree with the ACOE’s determination that the proposed project is likely toadversely affect the endangered Atlantic salmon. As discussed earlier in this biological opinion,any other listed species have either been addressed in other biological opinions, or are not likelyto be adversely affected by this action, therefore, the endangered Atlantic salmon is the onlylisted species further considered in this opinion.

Naturally-reproducing Atlantic salmon populations in the GOM DPS are at extremely low levelsof abundance. This conclusion is based principally on the fact that spawner abundance is below10% of the number required to maximize juvenile production, juvenile abundance indices arelower than historical counts, and smolt production is less than a third of estimated capacity(AASBRT 1999). Conclusions about the status of the GOM DPS, however, must take intoconsideration the multiple-year classes of fish within the river and at sea at any given time, aswell as the river-specific fish being reared in the USFWS ‘5 hatchery program.

The river-specific hatchery program, which was initiated in 1991, significantly supplementsnatural production in the GOM DPS watersheds. In some river systems, sufficient numbers ofstocked fry are available to fully saturate available habitat. Parr abundance has significantly

Page65of 101

increased as a result of the fry stocking program. Although numbers of parr have increased, parrabundance has not increased at the same rate as would be expected based on the level of frystocking and previous estimates of in-river survival. This observation has increased scrutiny ofwater quality and habitat conditions in an attempt to identify factors within the river that may becausing parr mortality. The overwinter survival for parr during the winter just prior to theirpreparation for leaving the river and migrating to the ocean is of particular concern.

The higher numbers of parr in the rivers have resulted in more ~molts leaving the GOM DPSwatersheds. Although the numbers of smolts have increased, they have not increased at the ratethat would have been predicted based on levels of fry stocking and previous estimates of fry tosmolt survival. Smolt tracking studies also have identified high outmigration mortality. Tn anattempt to identify factors that are causing high smolt mortality, studies were conducted toexamine ‘smolt condition. Preliminary results from these studies indicate that, at least for the2002 Dennys River smolt class, the condition of smolts was poor. This would likely haveresñlted in very poor transitipn to salt water and high smolt mortality. Further research isongoing to examine if this is a situation unique to the Dennys River and to identify water qualityparameters that could be leading to poor smolt condition.

The North Atlantic Salmon Working Group of the International Council for the Exploration ofthe Sea prepares an annual estimate of pre-fishery abundance of Atlantic salmon in the NorthAtlantic based on spawner abundance and habitat conditions. This relationship contains twophases, a high productivity phase and a low productivity phase based on observations ofspawners and pre-fishery abundance since 1977. The relationship has been in the lowproductivity phase for the last twelve years. The stocking efforts described above have resultedin an increase in the number of salmon leaving the GOM DPS. However, low productivity in themarine environment in recent years has prevented this level of stocking from increasing returns.A change in the marine environment to the high productivity phase would result in more returnsto the GOM DPS.

Current adult returns to the GOM DPS are alarmingly low. However, in order to acquire a fullpicture of the future of the species, one must consider the numbe’rs of fish in the USFWS ‘shatchery program, the numbers of fry annually stocked, parr abundance, smolt outmigration, andmarine survival. Efforts to increase abundance at each lifestage and to minimize mortalitybetween life stages are ongOing and are essential to the recovery of the species.

III. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

This section of the opinion analyzes the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on theGOM DPS of Atlantic salmon, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated orinterdependent (50 CFR 402.02, June 30, 1986). Indirect effects are those that are caused by theproposed action, are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions arethose that are part of a larger action and depen4 upon the larger action for their justification.Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action underconsideration.

Page66of 101

This opinion examines the likely effects of the proposed action on the GOM DPS of Atlanticsalmon, within the context of the species’ current status and the environmental baseline (whichconsiders past and present impacts in the action area).

The ACOE special conditions proposed to be included in the existing RHA Section 10 permitsare specifically designed to address the effects of aquaculture on the endangered Atlantic salmon,as discussed above. However, even if the procedures described in the ACOE special conditionsare implemented as envisioned, there will still be failures of containment systems, accidents,storms, or other events that result in an escape of aquaculture fish (e.g., in December 2000,approximately 100,000 aquaculture salmon escaped into Machias Bay when a storm destroyed asteel cage off of Stone Island). Maine’s fish farms are located in a highly dynamic oceanenvironment where net pens and their associated mooring gear are subject to damage from strongwinds, high waves, ice, and boating accidents; these forces can damage gear and result in fishescapes, despite the best efforts of the aquaculture company’s on-site staff. Furthermore, therewill still be threats related to disease and parasites from aquaculture fish containedin net pens.Consequently, it is likely that some adverse effects to the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS willcontinue to occur with implementation of the proposed action. However, implementation of theproposed permit modifications significantly reduces the likelihood of interaction between farmedand wild fish and, consequently, the likelihood that any future interaction will appreciably reducethe potential for survival and recovery of the GOM DPS.

Background

The proposed ACOE special conditions will significantly reduce, but will not eliminate, thelosses of farmed fish from net pens in the vicinity of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon. Lossesof fish from net pens can occur in any one of three ways: (1) “trickle” losses of small numbers offish during regular activities, such as feeding; (2) systemic losses during specific activities suchas stocking smolts into cages, grading fish in net pens and harvesting; and (3) catastrophic lossesdue to predators, storms, structural damage, mooring failure, or accidents, such as vesselsrunning into a cage. Losses from U.S. cages have been attributed to all of these causes. Whenfish escape from a net pen, they enter the marine environment and may head farther out to sea orhead into a coastal river. There are not sufficient data currently available to be able to estimatewhat percentage of fish that escape from a cage will enter rivers. The percentage is likelyinfluenced by the season during which the loss occurs, the age of the fish that escape, theprOximity of the cage to a river, as well as other factors. The annual detection of escapees inrivers with weirs since 1994 does provide evidence that some percentage of the fish that escapefrom marine cages do enter rivers. As demonstrated in Tables 2 and 3, over the past nine years,tens of thousands of fish have escaped; furthermore, some of these fish have entered some of theGOM DPS rivers. It is also important to note that some of the escapees that have beenintercepted in Maine rivers have been sexually mature.

Escaped fish that enter rivers with weirs may be intercepted and removed from the river, therebypreventing further in-river interactions between those escaped fish and wild salmon. However,weirs are not a complete barrier preventing interactions because 1) in some rivers there isspawning habitat below the weirs (e.g., the Dennys River), 2) the weirs. are not present year

Page67of 101

round, and 3) the efficacy of the screening depends on the ability to be able to positively identifythç fish as an aquaculture escapee. The accuracy of identification of farmed fish at a weir or trapcan be affected by the presence, persistence and readability of an external mark; scale preparationand readability; and experience of the individual tending the weir or trap. When watertemperatures are high, the opportunity to handle fish in order to conduct an external examinationcan be severely limited (i.e., to avoid stress or injury to wild salmon that would be subsequentlyreleased upstream of the weir to spawn). Weirs or traps are currently located on the Dennys,Narraguagüs and Pleasant Rivers. The Machias and East Macbias Rivers have many marinecages located near their mouths, but do not contain weirs or traps. Therefore, aquacultureescapees continue to have free access to these river systems where take is anticipated. The.detection of escapees in a weir or trap on the Dennys, Narraguagus or Pleasant Rivers providesevidence that there have been losses at marine cages and that some percentage of the escaped fishhave entered rivers within the GUM DPS.

Individual fish captured in a weir/trap and positively identified as aquaculture escapees will beremoved from the system, and therefore are prevented from having additional impacts on wildsalmon through redd superimposition, genetic introgression, competition or disease transfer.Their presence in a weir/trap, however, indicates that escapees are present in the, marineenvironment, and some percentage of these escapees will continue to enter other rivers within theGOM DPS without weirs/traps and are likely to then adversely affect the wild stock through reddsuperimposition, genetic introgression, or competition. While escapees may affect wild stockswithin the GUM DPS through the transfer of disease, there is currently not sufficient informationto assume that disease transfer is reasonably certain to occur and result in take.

Available evidence suggests that aquaculture escapees sometimes spawn later in the year thanwild fish (Lura and Saegrov 1991). Escapees have been shown to dig redds on top of the reddspreviously created by wild fish. In doing so, the escapees can dislodge the eggs of the wild fishor lay thejr eggs on top of the wild salmon eggs, resulting in a direct take of eggs, as well as take(i.e., harm or harass) through the reduction in the reproductive success of the wild fish.Aquaculture escapees are also anticipated to negatively impact the reproductive success of wildfish by competing with wild stocks for habitat, food or mates. If aquaculture escapees are presentin the rivers at the same time as wild fish, they may spawn with the wild fish, resulting inhybridization. As explained previously in Section II. D. (Status of the Species and FactorsAffecting its Environment), this genetic introgression is likely to result in reduced genetic fitnessof the wild stock, reducing its reproductive success and therefore reducing numbers of wild fishin the future. The impact of this anticipated introgression is magnified by the extremely lownumber of fish surviving in the wild. Aquaculture escapees may also breed with each other,creating juveniles that will compete with wild juveniles for food and habitat and pose a futurerisk (i.e., if they become sexually mature) for genetic interactions with wild salmon. Bycompeting with ~‘ild stocks for habitat, food or mates, .aquaculture escapees can also negativelyimpact the reproductive success of wild fish.

Disease and parasites may be transferred from aquaculture fish to wild fish in a variety of ways,including: (1) when wild fish migrate past net pens on their migration into or out of the rivers; (2)when aquaculture escapees and wild fish interact i~ the marine environment; or (3) when

Page68oflOl

aquaculture escapees and wild fish interact in rivers, including when these fish are held at weirsor traps. Disease and parasite impacts were described in greater detail in Section II. D. (Status ofthe Species and Factors Affecting its Environment). While there is little evidence that impactshave manifested themselves in the wild salmon population to date, the threat remains as long asthe aquaculture industry continues to operate in the geographic range of the GOM DPS.

A. Containment

Special Condition No. 4 (Containment) should reduce the effects of escapement described aboveby requiring each facility to employ an approved Containment Management System (CMS),including a loss control plan that outlines critical control points (CCP) where escapement mayoccur. The development of the CMS will enable facility operators to be aware ahead of time ofareas, activities, and situations where the potential for escapement is elevated. This increasedawareness and preplanning for escape response, severe weather procedures, and unusual eventmanagement should reduce the frequency and magnitude of escapes. Auditing and therequirement for corrective actions should further the effectiveness of this system in reducingescapes over time, by allowing a mechanism to continually update and improve upon thestrategies and information outlined in each facility’s CMS.

Reductions in the numbers of escapees entering rivers, as a result of the adoption of the CMS,will reduce the potential for genetic and ecological impacts from aquaculture activities. Fewerfish escaping from net pens results in fewer fish entering rivers and therefore reduces thelikelihood of interbreeding between escaped Atlantic salmon and the GOM DPS of Atlanticsalmon. A reduction in number of escapees in rivers also reduces the impact of competitionbetween farmed Atlantic salmon or farmed rainbow trout and wild Atlantic salmon. Asexplained previously, competition for habitat and mates is reasonably certain to impair essentialbehavioral patterns of wild Atlantic salmon including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (includedin the concepts of harm and harass,2 which are included in the definition of take).

The CMS includes measures to reduce the potential for escapement to occur from all three of thetypes of losses identified above (i.e., trickle, systemic, and catastrophic losses). Inventorytracking, monitoring food consumption, and monitoring CCP will increase the potential forprompt identification of losses, which will result in quicker correction of the factors that lead tothe loss, which in turn will reduce the potential for future losses. Monitoring the CCP involvedin management measures, such as smolt stocking, grading and harvesting, may result in theidentification of improvements that need to be made in these management practices toreduce thepotential for systemiclosses during these activities. The CMS also includes provisions formaintaining records on equipment status, including dates of installation and maintenance, andrequirements for net testing and mooring inspection. These provisions will reduce the potentialfor predator attacks or storms to cause damage that could result in catastrophic loss of fish fromthe net pens. This is significant, as equipment failures are more likely to result in large, one-timeescape events, than are the other two types of losses identified above (i.e., trickle and systemic).

2 While NOAA Fisheries does not have a regulatory definition of harass or harassment like the USFWS, for the

purposes of this Opinion NOAA Fisheries believes that impairing essential behavioral patterns of wild Atlantic salmon doesconstitute harassment under the ESA.

Page 69of 101

The CMS also requires mandatory reporting of losses, which will assist in the development of adatabase that will facilitate our future ability to better understand the relationship between lossesat cages and escapees entering rivers. While the two are known to be linked, and it is reasonableto assume that reductions in losses at cages will result in reductions in escapees entering rivers,there is no information, at this point in tifne, to be able to more specifically describe therelationship.

Although it is not possible to precisely quantify the impact of these ACOB special conditions, itis reasonable to conclude that Special Condition No. 4 will result in a reduction in the frequencyand magnitude of losses from net pens, which in turn will result in a reduction in the frequencyand magnitude of escapees entering GOM DPS rivers. Unfortunately, evaluating the success ofthe CMS will be limited by the lack of a baseline, i.e., the lack of accurate information providedby the industry identifying the frequency, nature, genetic composition, and extent of past andongoing escapes that is needed for comparison purposes. At this point, it is reasonable to assumethat the implementation of Special Condition No. 4 will result in at least a 25% reduction in theloss of fish from cages and a resulting 25% reduction in escapees entering rivers, as measured bya 25% reduction in escapees detected in weirs/traps.

In order to set a reduction target, the Services attempted to locate quantitative data on reductionsin escapes as a result of implementation of containment improvements. Data was only availablefrom the Norwegian aquaculture industry. It is reasonable to use this data as a measure of whatmight be achieved or expected in the U.S. due to similarities in equipment and operatingpractices. In Norway a National Action Plan to prevent aquaculture escapes was developed andimplemented in 2000. The Norwegian National Action Plan included containment measuressimilar to those proposed in the draft ACOE permits in this biological opinion, includinginventory tracking focusing on critical control points and increased training for aquacultureindustry employees. Between 1999 and 2001, Norway experienced a 22% decline in absolutenumbers of reported escapes of farm-raised salmon. The data collected refers to losses reportedat the cage site, whereas our incidental take statement measures escapees detected in rivers. Thereported decrease of 22% was documented while the number of fish in production increased. Interms of the number of escapees relative to salmon production, the number of escaped farm-raised salmon declined almost 41% (from about 2.8 percent of total production in 1999 to about1.7 % of total production in 2001 (NASCO 2003). Because we are not scaling the incidental takestatement to production, the 41% may appear to be the more appropriate number to use. Thelarge difference between the 22% and 41% reflects a significant increase in production in theNorwegian industry between 1999 and 2001. The facilities included in the project descriptionare operating at or near capacity and therefore a significant increase in U.S. production would notbe reasonably expected. Without an anticipated significant increase in U.S. production, it wouldappear reasonable to anticipate a greater than 22% reduction in reported escapes. Importantly,some of the anticipated reduction in escapes as a consequence of implômentation of thecontainment measures has been realized since some improvements have already beenimplemented. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to anticipate a 41% reduction in escapes, aswas observed in Norway. Taking into consideration the best available quantitative data, which islimited to the experience in Norway, a conservative estimate of anticipated reduction in detectionof escapees in rivers is 25%. Based on the Norwegian experience, it is reasonable to conclude

Page7Oof 101

that the CMS implemented through Special Condition No.4 will result in at least a 25%reduction ~n escapees in the Maine aquaculture industry.

These expected reductions are significant in reducing the frequency and number of escapeesentering rivers. The potential for the most significant adverse genetic impacts to wild stocks isgreatest if escapees persistently enter a river on an annual basis. Wild populations are better ableto withstand and recover from a one-time genetic impact of escapees interbreeding with wild•stocks than if interbreeding occurs on an annual basis. In focusing on areas where there is agreater potential for either “trickle” or systemic losses, through the development of CCP andmonitoring, the potential for the repeated annual intrusion of escapees is significantly reduced.

B: Phase-out of European Stocks and Genetic Introgression

Special Condition No. 1 (Genetic Strain) removes the greatest aquaculture-related effect (i.e.,genetic introgression between the GOM DPS and non-North American strain stocks) on thesurvival and recovery of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon. Condition No. 1 will progressivelyreduce the percentage of farm fish in cages that are reproductively-viable non-North Americaiistrain salmon and will eventuallyeliminate them from Maine waters. This will reduce theseverity of the adverse effects from the current use of genetically divergent strains of aquaculturesalmon on the GOM DPS. The large genetic difference between North American and non-NorthAmerican strain Atlantic salmon increases the likelihood that introgression between the two willresult in significant, long-term, adverse genetic impacts on the wild stock, which would have theeffect of reducing the likelihood of survival and recovery of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon.

By preventing the additional spawning of non-North American strain Atlantic salmon, SpecialCondition No. 1 immediately prevents the creation of any additional pure or hybrid non-NorthAmerican strain Atlantic salmon. According to Special Condition No. 1, all new, reproductively-viable fish stocked after July 31, 2004 must be of North American origin. However, pure orhybrid non-North American strain Atlantic salmon currently growing iii freshwater hatcheries ormarine cages will be allowed to remain until they reach the size at which they would typically beharvested. Allowing the industry to continue raising these fish to harvestable size reduces theeconomic impact of the condition. Since no fish stocked after July 31, 2004 will be of non-NorthAmerican origin, the percentage of fish in the water of non-North American origin will bereduced with each harvesting event. By March 1, 2006, all non-North American Atlantic salmonwill have been removed from net pens.

Non-North American origin Atlantic salmon with the potential to escape from net pens willcontinue to be present in the Gulf of Maine during the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 spawningperiods for the GONE OPS of Atlantic salmon. Therefore, the potential for introgression betweenescaped fish of non-North American 04gm and wild fish will exist for at least four more years(given that Atlantic salmon can survive to spawn more than once). While this has the potentialto adversely affept the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon over the long term if unabated, it is unlikelyto reduce appreciably the likelihood of survival and recovery of the GOM DPS because of thephase-out and elimination of European fish in the near future. The short-term, potential impact isdecreasing each year, as each year the number of fish in cages that are non-North American will

Page7l of 101

be reduced, and weirs and traps will be used to screen out aquaculture escapees in three riversystems. The “short-term” timeframe is approximately five years, when the Services expect thatsome non-North American escapees will still be present in the ocean or the GOM DPS rivers.Over the long term, the potential for future introgression from non-North American Atlanticsalmon to the GOM DPS is eliminated.

Adverse genetic interactions between North American aquaculture strain Atlantic salmon andwild salmon can still occur, although the absence of non-North American strain salmon will posesignificantly less risk to the GOM DPS because the potential for highly exotic genes to beintroduced into GOM DPS salmon will be eliminated (Hindar et aL 1991). Through the processof domestication, even North American strain aquaculture fish will genetically diverge from thewild strain. Therefore, even when reproductively-viable non-North American strain Atlanticsalmon have been removed from net pens, it is still necessary to minimize escapees in order tominimize the adverse genetic impacts on the GOM DPS. If a North American strain aquaculturecscapee successfully interbreeds with a wild salmon, this adverse genetic interaction can disruptlocal adaptations, threaten stock viability, and lower recruitment. Furthermore, the potential forfish disease transmission and other undesirable ecological interactions exists, regardless of thegenetic strain utilized by the aquaculture industry.

Evaluation of the threat posed by introgression is complicated by a number of factors. Thepresence of aquaculture escapees in a river introduces the possibility of introgression. However,interbreeding between an escapee and a wild fish can only occur if the escaped fish enters a riverat a time when wild fish are spawning, the escapee is sexually mature, and it finds a wild mate.Interbreeding maybe less likely to occur in the Sheepscot and Ducktrap Rivers and in CoveBrook, which are geographically more distant from marine cages containing reproductively-viable non-North American salmon than are the other five GOM DPS rivers. However, theUSFWS does have genetic evidence of aquaculture escapees successfully spawning in theSheepscot River; new information gained from the future reporting of escape events andinterception of marked fish may provide greater insight into the migration patterns of anddistances traveled by escapees. As explained previously, the aquaculture facility located in theSheepscot River raises female, triploid rainbow trout and therefore does not pose a genetic threatto wild Atlantic salmon. Of the remaining five rivers, three (the Narraguagus, Dennys andPleasant Rivers) have traps/weirs. Marine cages are located in close proximity to the Machiasand East Machias Rivers, which do not currently have trapping facilities to intercept aquacultureescapees. Although it has been speculated that the natural falls near the mouth of the MacbiasRiver may be difficult for aquaculture escapees to navigate, the USFWS has genetic evidencethat aquaculture escapees have successfully spawned in the Machias RiVer upstream of thesefalls.

Based on the relatively low number of escapees detected in the rivers with weirs (see Table 3), itis reasonable to assume that a relatively low number of escapees have had access to the Machiasand East Machias Rivers. Although the numbers are low, and only a small proportion of thoseentering the rivers are likely to successfully interbreed with wild fish for the reasons identifiedabove, they still pose a significant threat to the GOM DPS, given the low numbers ofdocumented adult salmon returns to these rivers. A persistent genetic effect on a river population

Page 72 of 101

only occurs if the offspring of hybridization between a wild fish and an escapee successfullybreeds in the future. Offspring could contribute to genetic effects without leaving the rivei ifthey become precocious male parr. The potential for offspring to contribute as a sexually maturereturning adult is further minimized by high mortalities during the outmigration and marinemigration.

As the preceding discussiob illustrates, there are a number of natural and human-caused factorswhich reduce the potential for hybridization to occur between escaped fish and wild fish. Thesefactors reduce the potential for hybridization to occur at a high level within any one river, tooccur in multiple GOM DPS rivers, or to occur formultiple years. Despite the foregoing, pastdocumentation of sexually mature escapees in the rivers makes it reasonable to conclude thatsome hybridization will still occur. The wild fish involved in such hybridization are adverselyaffected, as some may be deprived of the opportunity to spawn with another wild fish andcontribute to future generations (a male usually mates with more than one female, while thefemale only mates with only one male during each spawning season). This effect is on theindividual fish level. For this to translate into an effect on a year class in a specific river, asignificant proportion of the returning adults in the river would have to be involved in suchhybridization (in light of stocking). The potential for a year class effect to translate into an effecton an entire river population is minimized because of the complex life history of Atlantic salmon.In other words, in one calendar year, the spawning population might be adversely affected byhybridization between wild and escaped farmed fish, but the other multiple year classes presentwithin the river and at sea would not be affected by that hybridization.

For introgression to reduce appreciably the likelihood of survival and recovery of the GOM DPSof Atlantic salmon as a whole, hybridization between escapees and wild fish would have to occurat a significant level within each river, occur in a number of rivers, and occur over a number ofyears. The likelihood of this occurring is reduced by the fact that 1) not all of the rivers are inclose proximity to marine cages, 2) some of the rivers are screened at least a portion of the year,and 3) the CMS is anticipated to significantly reduce the number of escapees entering riverswithin the GOM DPS.

C. Competition and Disease Transfer

Special Condition No. 6 (Marking) will reduce effects of interactions between farm escapees andGOM DPS salmon. External marks (e.g., fin clips) will greatly enhance the ability of fieldscientists to quickly.detect and remove aquaculture escapees at weirs on GOM DPS rivers (aswell as reduce stress caused to wild fish from handling to determine whether they are wild oraquaculture salmon). When the weirs are operating, this will prevent aquaculture fish fromhaving access to GOM DPS rivers where weirs are located and will minimize the chance forinteractions to occur. If an external mark is not applied (because a more specific internal markhas been applied), scale analysis and morphology will be used to identify escapees. The accuracyof field determinations made based on scale analysis and morphology would then be verifiedthrough extraction of the internal mark. Ongoing efforts to enhance the reference database ofsalmon scales and to provide sufficient training to field personnel have improved and willcontinue to improve the accuracy of the scale identification condueted streamside. Hatchery and

Page73 of 101

site-specific marks will enable facility operators to work with the ACOE and the Services toquickly identify the cause of escapement and to correct problems leading to the escape. Theability to reduce, and ideally eliminate, the presence of escapees in rivers is dependent on theability to identify and control the losses at the net pens.

Special Condition No. 5 will also minimize effects by requiring reporting of known or suspectedescapes of more than 50 fish with an average weight of 2 kg each or more within 24 hours. Fiftyfish was identified by the aquaculture industry as a minimum number of escapees that they couldreasonably detect; a 2 kg fish was identified by the Services and the ASC as a minimum weightat which an Atlantic salmon could be sexually mature. This reporting requirement will enhancethe ability to retrieve escaped fish when possible and alert field scientists operating weirs onGOM DPS rivers to the fact that an escape has occurred. The reporting requirement will alsocontribute to a database that, in combination with information on detection of escapees in rivers,will allow for a• clearer understanding of the chain of events that starts with salmon escapingfrom a net pen and ends with escapees entering rivers. This system will help determine, overtime, what specifió factors (e.g., season, age/size class, proximity to GOM DPS rivers, etc.) aremore or less likely to result in escapees entering the GOM DPS rivers.

Proper containment (Special Condition No. 4), fish husbandry practices, and diseasemanagement (Special. Condition No. 3) for other salmonid species reared in marine cages willcollectively reduce the risks that disease transfer and competition pose to wild Atlantic salmon.

D. Transgenics

The potential use of transgenic salmonids in the aquaculture industry has recently been identifiedas a possible threat to wild Atlantic salmon populations. Transgenic salmonids include fishspecies of the genera Salmo, Oncorhynchus, or Salvelinus in the family Salmonidae that bear,within their DNA, copies of novel genetic constructs introduced through recombinant DNAtechnology using genetic material derived from a species different from the recipient, anddescendants of any individuals so transfected. Escaped, reproductively-viable transgenic salmoncould interbreed with wild fish. Research to develop transgenic fish for aquaeulture increasedthrough the 1980s and had advanced to the extent that, by 1989, production of 14 species oftransgenic fish, including Atlantic salmon, had been reported (Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990).

Transgenic fish produced for culture in marine net pens must be selected to survive under nearlynatural physical and chemical environmental conditions. If they escape, therefore, it is likely that.a portion of them will survive. In a study by Sheela et al. (1999), transgenes were inherited inmany progeny from transformed fish, as determined through DNA analyses and throughexpression of the reporter gene. If an introduced construct can find its way onto or into achromosome before the first cell division of a newly-fertilized egg, all the cells in the developingorganism, including future germ cells, will contain copies (Lutz 2000). The transmission ofnovel genes to wild fish could lead to physiological and behavioral changes, and traits other thanthose targeted by the insert gene are likely to be affected. Ecological effects are expected to begreatest where transgenic fish exhibit substantial altered performance. Such fish coulddestabilize or change aquatic ecosystems (Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990).

Page74of 101

In a study by Cook et al. (2000), growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon exhibited a 2.62-to 2.85-fold greater rate of growth relative to non-transgenic salmon, over the body weightinterval examined. Thi~ study found that the transgenic experimental subjects possessed thephysiological plasticity necessary to accommodate acceleration in growth well beyond the normalrange for this species, with few effects other than a greater appetite and a leaner body (Cook etal. 2000). Because aquatic ecosystems function through complex interactions involving transfersof energy, organisms, nutrients, and information, it is difficult to predict the community-levelimpacts of releasing transgenic fishes that exhibit one or more types of phenotypic change(Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990). At this time, more research is needed to identify the impactsthat escaped transgenic salmon would have on natural populations and their habitat before use forcommercial aquaculture is considered.

Research and development efforts on transgenic forms of Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout arecurrently being directed toward their potential uáe for sea pen aquaculture. Emphasis has beenplaced on enhancement of growth and low water temperature tolerance through the transfer ofgenetic material from other cold-tolerant species, such as flounder. In 2002, the Food and DrugAdministration received an application for approval to sell and possibly grow transgenic salmonin the United States for use by the aquaculture industry.

The prohibition on the Use of transgenic salmonids at existing marine sites off the coast of Maine(Special Condition No. 2) will eliminate the potentially adverse disease and ecological risksposed by the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture. The risk posed by a transgenicsalmonid to wild salmon would be greatly affected by the specific gene manipulation conducted.Anyone proposing the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture would need to provideinformation on the methods used and the potential for genetic, fish health and ecological impactson wild stocks. This information would have to be evaluated to determine the level of risk posedto wild Atlantic salmon stocks and a decision would have to be made as to whether that level ofrisk was acceptable or not. The use of transgenic salmonids will be prohibited under ConditionNo. 2 until such time as these risks can be evaluated.

Summary ofEffects

In summary, the proposed action is most likely to adversely affect individual Atlantic salmon bycausing take through harm or harassment in the GOM DPS rivers without weirs or traps (i.e.,Sheepscot, Ducktrap, Machias, and East Machias Rivers, and Cove Brook). Some take may alsooccur in rivers with weirs, for example where there is spawning habitat located downstream ofthe weir or if a fish enters when the weir is not in place. The harm ot harassment is reasonablycertain to result from one or more factors discussed above, including redd superimposition,competition, and genetic introgression. The scientific studies, escape reports from theaquaculture industry, and the detection of aquaculture fish in Maine rivers all discussed in thisopinion establish that the anticipated impacts are reasonably certain to occur.

In view of this, the Services have evaluated these impacts at a very detailed level of analysis andevaluated several factors influencing the impact these effects will have on the GOM DPS. This

Page75of 101

analysis helps to distinguish the important difference between the impacts to individual GOMDPS salmon and effects to the population of salmon defined by the GOM PPS. Thedemonstrated influx of aquaculture fish into at least one GOM DPS river, repeatedly, over thelast several years makes these impacts to wild salmon reasonably certain to occur. The greaterthe number of escapees that enter the GOM DPS rivers and the greater the period of time overwhich these events occur, the greater is the likelihood that the entire GOM DPS salmonpopulation would be impacted versus occasional impacts to individual salmon within the GOMDPS.

Although the Services are reasonably certain that one or more of these impacts (e.g.,introgression) will occur as a result of the action, the Services do not believe that every incidenceof an aquaculture fish entering a GOM DPS river will result in such take of GOM DPS salmonThe Services do not anticipate that each aquaculture escapee that enters a GOM DPS river willcause introgression or redd superimposition. For example, an escapee may not find a wild fish tospawn with.

While a certain level of impact is still anticipated, including some take, there are a number offactors mitigating these impacts at the GOM DPS population level. First, the new permitconditions will both reduce the number of escapees entering GOM DPS rivers and eliminate the~greatest long-term threat to wild salmon by phasing out the use of non-North American strains.Furthermore, there are multiple rivers in the GOM DPS and multiple-year classes present at anygiven time for each river (both within the river and at sea); consequently, each time anaquaculture escapee enters a GOM DPS river and causes an impact to wild salmon, the effect ofthat impact (e.g., redd superimposition or hybridization) is limited to only a subset of the entireriver’s population. The operation of a weir or trap on three of the GOM DPS rivers alsosubstantially reduces the opportunities for interactions between aquaculture escapees and wildsalmon. Finally, the USFWS’s river-specific stocking program currently helps to maintainpopulations for six of the eight GOM DPS rivers, helping to offset the extremely low number ofadult returns in recent years.

Therefore, while the probability of impacts to some individuals• will remain high, the magnitudeof these impacts to the population is anticipated to decrease over time due to the new specialconditions. The potential for impacts to individuals will decrease as a result of the expected 25%decrease in escapees associated with implementation of the CMS. A decrease in the frequency ofimpacts to individuals will further reduce the potential for impacts to a year class and a riverpopulation. The severity of impact that any individual aquaculture escapee poses will also bedecreased as the use of non-North American Atlantic salmon is eliminated.

IV. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, tribal, local or private actions that arereasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this opinion. Future federal actionsthat are unrelated to the proposed action are not consideted in this section, because they requireseparate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.

Page 76 of 101

Future local activities that may impact the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS include agricultural andforestry practices, peat mining, and sport fishing.

A. Agriculture

Agricultural production within the GOM DPS includes the following: hay, silage, corn, livestock,Christmas trees, market vegetables, blueberries, cranberries, and horticultural plants (MaineAtlantic Salmon Task Force 1997). Water withdrawal for irrigation is the farming practice ofgreatest concern to the Services. Only the Narraguagus and Pleasant River watersheds areexpected to continue to support significant agricultural water use, primarily for the blueberryindustry, that may affect salmon in the future. However, as a result of Maine’s Atlantic SalmonConservation Plan, WUMP were developed to better address the needs of Atlantic salmon, whileallowing for continued use of irrigation water by the blueberry industry (see also Section ll.D.1.Agricultural Water Withdrawals). The WTJMP initiative identifies best management practices toconserve water on blueberry farms, and emphasizes use of alternatives sources, including wellsand retention ponds, to avoid direct withdrawals from rivers and streams containing Atlanticsalmon habitat. Although voluntary and non-regulatory in approach, the WUIvIP initiativeshould help reduce effects to salmon that would be caused by excessive agricultural waterwithdrawals.

No other agricultural practices are known to be major threats to salmon. However, due to thelow numbers of returning adult salmon, minor impacts from erosion and sedimentation, livestockwaste in salmon streams, or other agricultural practices take on added significance. Watershedcouncils are expected to continue to play an active role in successfully addressing a variety ofnon-point source pollution problems, including those telated to agriculture and forestry, in all ofthe GOM DPS watersheds. Non-point source pollution issues from nutrients and sediments andfrom livestock and manure management are a high-priority threat only in the Sheepscot Riverwatershed (MASCP 1997).

B. Forestry

The Services do not believe that current and anticipated future forestry practices pose asignificant threat to the well-being of the GOM DPS. Forestry is the dominant land use in thePleasant, Narraguagus, Machias, East Machias, and Dennys River watersheds. The Cove Brook,Sheepscot and Ducktrap River watersheds experience only limited forestry activity. Given theprecarious status of the species, however, even minor impacts to wild salmon or their habitatshould be recognized and addressed. Practices that cause erosion, rçduced streamside shading,and debris dams are reasonably certain to occur and should be addressed. Forestry activities thatcause erosion and stream sedimentation can degrade salmon spawning and juvenile rearinghabitat. Removal of streamside vegetation can cause an increase in stream water temperaturesthat could lead to stressful conditions for salmon or make the habitat unsuitable. Debris damscaused by logging wastes can result in migration barriers that reduce the availability of salmonhabitat. Consequently, the Services will continue to work with the state and the private sector toimprove salmon habitat and to modify any forestry practices that are shown to be detrimental.Watershed councils and Project Share are also expected to continue to play a role in addressing

Page 77 of 101

these forestry impacts through habitat restoration and conservation activities.

C. Peat Mining

Continuation of activities at an existing peat mining facility in the Narraguagus River drainagemay adversely affect Atlantic salmon within the GOM DPS. Peat mining can adversely affectAtlantic salmon and their habitat through the discharge of low pH water containing suspendedpeat silt and dissolved metals and pesticides. There is a concern that these factors may adverselyinfluence juvenile salmon survival.

P. Recreational Fishing

Although the catch and release sport fishery for Atlantic salmon has been discontinued in Maine,recreational fishing that targets other species can potentially lead to incidental catch of variouslife stages of Atlantic salmon, resulting in injury or death. Atlantic salmon parr can be confusedwith brook trout and mistakenly harvested by anglers. The ]FW has stated that they are not ableto estimate the number of Atlantic salmon caught as recreational bycatch or to estimate theresultant mortality [Land and Water Resources Council (LWRC) 1999]. Documented poachingevents in 1998 and 2000 indicate that poaching occurs at fairly low levels in Maine rivers, andthat poaching continues to pose a potential threat to Atlantic salmon.

Stocking of non-indigenous fish species and native enhancement fish for recreational fishing canincrease the risks to wild salmon in the GOM DPS through increased competition for food andthrough predation on juvenile salmon. Brook trout, brown trout, black bass, and landlockedsalmon have all been stocked within GOM DPS streams or headwaters; impacts on salmon arestill being monitored and evaluated. The State of Malne is assessing current stocking practices toidentify possible adverse impacts to wild salmon.

E. Aquaculture in Canada

The Atlantic salmon aquaculture industry in Maritime Canada, including Passamaquoddy Bay inNew Brunswick adjacent to Cobscook Bay in Maine, first harvested salmon in 1979. ln1997,there were 91 farms in Maritime Canada and Newfoundland that harvested 20,310 metric tons ofsalmon. Close to 95% of the Maritimes’ production comes from salmon farms located in thePassarnaquoddy and Grand Manan areas of the western Bay of Fundy, just across the border fromMaine. Tn 2000, New Brunswick had 96 salmon farms. The DFO reports evidence of farmedsalmon escaping into the marine ecosystem and then ascending rivers, as well as hatcheryescapees entering rivers directly and then migrating out to sea (DFO 1999). The salmonaquaculture industry in Maritime Canada has experienced outbreaks of the disease TSAV inrecent years. This aquaculture industry is expected to continue into the future. The Servicesexpect that some Atlantic salmon that escape from aquaculture facilities in Maritime Canadaarereasonably likely to reach the range of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon, particularly in theDennys River watershed, and cause adverse impacts to GOM DPS salmon through a variety ofinteractions including interbreeding, redd superimposition, and/or transfer of disease.

Page78of 101

F. Summary

Overall, the significance of the cumulative effects of the various activities discussed in thissection on the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon is difficult to assess. The effects of these activitieswould also be expected to vary from one GOM DPS watershed to the next. It is important torealize that, although the cumulative effects mentioned are not threatening to the Atlantic salmonGOM DPS at the population level, the action area encompasses the entire range of the GOMDPS. This results in a wide variety of perhaps individually minor impacts to the GOM DPSoccurring over a vast area of land encompassing eight watersheds.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the close proximity of hundreds of fish pens to the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon, andthe anticipated continued escapes, the best available scientific data and commercial informationindicates that the continued operation of Maine aquaculture facilities poses a threat to individualwild salmon because escaped aquaculture salmon compete for food and habitat, disrupt redds,interbreed, thus disrupting breeding, feeding and sheltering of wild Atlantic salmon. Aquaculturefacilities may also promote the transfer of disease and parasites to wild salmon, which may alsoadversely affect wild salmon.

The special conditions proposed by the ACOE are designed to reduce the impacts of existingaquaculture operations on endangered Atlantic salmon. Special Condition No. 1 removes thegreatest aquaculture-related threat to the survival and recovery of the GOM DPS by ~phasing outand eventually eliminating the use of reproductively-viable non-North American Atlanticsalmon. The other ACOE special conditions reduce the potential for future impacts by reducingthe risk of escapement, monitoring the health of farmed fish, ai~d providing a mechanism torepair containment problems and evaluate the effectiveness of containment through marking.

Despite full implementation of the ACOE proposed special conditions, it is likely as explained inthe Effects of the Action section, that a limited amount of take will still occur throughinterbreeding, competition, or the transfer of diseases and parasites. However, as also explainedin the Effects of the Action section, the amount and extent of these impacts is mitigated by anumber of factors. These factors include the following: 1) operation of weirs, 2) multiple riverpopulations within the GOM DPS, 3) multiple-year classes of salmon present at any given timefor each GOM DPS river, 4) the USFWS’s ongoing conservation hatchery program, and 5) theACOE’s proposed permit conditions.

The ACOB permit conditions will elimihate the greatest long term threat and minimize the short-term adverse effects to listed Atlantic salmon by: (1) eliminating the use of non-North Americanstrain Atlantic salmon; (2) developing containment management systems with loss control plansand audits; (3) marking aquaculture fish; (4) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmonids; and (5)requiring fish health certification before stocking alternative salmonids. As described in theEffects of the Action section, the anticipated level of impact remaining after the ACOE permitconditions are implemented is not anticipated to have a population level impact on the Atlanticsalmon GOM DPS.

Page79of 101

Therefore, after considering the environmental baseline, the effects of the proposed action, andthe potential for future cumulative effects in the action area, the Services have determined thatthe continued operation of the 42 existing marine cage sites with the proposed ACOB specialconditions is not reasonably likely to reduce the reproduction, number, and distribution of theGOM DPS of Atlantic salmon in a way that appreciably reduces its likelihood of survival andrecovery in the wild. This determination is based on an assessment of the modified permits,including implementation of all of the ACQE special conditions in the project description.

In summary, the Services have determined that the continuation of the ACOE permits with theproposed modifications is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Atlantic salmonGOM OPS. Currently, no critical habitat has been designated for this species. However, thisbiological opinion did consider effects of the action on GOM UPS salmon habitat.

VI. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of endangered species without special exemption. Theterm “take” is defined to include harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture orcollect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Services toinclude an act that actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitatmodification or degradation that results in death or injury to a listed species by significantlyimpairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The term“harass” is defined by the USFWS as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood ofinjury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patternswhich include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. (NOAA Fisheries has notdefined the term “harass” in its ESA regulations.) Incidental take is defined as take that isincidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under theterms of Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as partof the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA, provided that suchtaking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this ITS.

The ACOE has a continuing oversight responsibility for the activities covered by this ITS. Themeasures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the ACOE so thatthey become binding conditions of any permit modifications issued to the permittees for theexemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply. If the ACOE either (1) fails to assume and implement theterms and conditions or (2) fails to require the permittees to adhere to the tenns and conditions ofthe II’S through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, the protective coverage of Section7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the ACOE or permitteesmust report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Services as specified inthe II’S [50 CFR § 402.14(i)(3)]. If the terms and conditions of this II’S are complied with andthe project is implemented as proposed, the ACOE and the permittees will be exempted from theprohibitions of Section 9 for take within the anticipated amount or extent.

A. Amount or Extent of Anticipated Take

Page 80 of 101

hcidental take is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action of continuing the existingpermits with the addition of the ACOE special conditions. The reasonable and prudent measuresin this opinion, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize theimpact of incidental take that will result from the proposed action. if, during the course of theaction, this level of incidental take is exceeded, the ACUB must reinitiate consultationsconsistent with 50 CUR 402.16. The ACOE must immediately provide an explanation of thecauses and circumstances surrounding this taking.

As described in the Effects of the Action section, fish that escape from marine aquaculturefacilities (net pens) and enter a GUM DPS river will harm or harass wild Atlantic salmon throughredd superimposition, competition for ‘food and space, and/or genetic introgression. The Servicesanticipate that the presence of aquaculture.fish in a GOM DPS river will result in take, because itis reasonable to expect that the escapees will, at a minimum, impair essential behavioral patterns,most notably breeding and competition for food and space. Reproduction of wild stocks will bedisrupted thràugh interbreeding between aquaculture and wild salmon or by reddsuperimposition. The intrusion of aquaculture fish into GUM DPS rivers and their interbreedingwith wild Atlantic salmon will result in genetic modifications to the wild population. Thesegenetic modifications will decrease the wild fish’s ability to compete for mates, food, nest sites,and other habitat needs, thus rendering the wild fish less fit for survival. Due to the difficultiesassociated with actually witnessing harmful interactions taking place in a GUM DPS river,deteàtions of escapees in GUM DPS rivers will serve as a surrogate measure of take for this iTS.

Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, the Serviãës determined thefollowing when developing this surrogate measure of take: (1) When salmon escape from anaquaculture facility, some portion of those escapees are likely to enter or attempt to enter a GUMDPS river. Escaped salmon may enter or try to enter both GUM DPS rivers with weirs or trapsand those without. (2) There is ample evidence to indicate that salmon will continue to escape,and therefore will continue to enter GUM 0P5 rivers both with and without weirs. (3) Absentthe ability to detect salmon entering the rivers without weirs, or even all fish entering rivers withweirs (ô.g., some escapees may remain below the weir and interact with wild fish there), it isreasonable to use detection levels of aquaculture salmon at rivers with weirs as a relative index ofthe number of undetected, escaped salmon that are entering GUM DPS rivers. in other words,detection levels at the rivers with weirs are indicative of proportional entries into GUM DPSrivers, and of anticipated take from escaped aquaculture salmon.

The Services believe that sexually mature aquaculture fish entering a GUM DPS river arereasonably certain to impair the essential behavior patterns of the wild salmon as describedabove. It will not be possible to identify the exact form of the take created by a single aquaculturefish unless the interaction is directly observed; however, the best avallable scientific informationindicates that there is a reasonable certainty that escaped aquaculture fish will harm or hai’ass (asdefined above) native salmon and/or salmon eggs through one or more of the following means:redd superimposition, competition for food and space (e.g., breeding habitat), or geneticintrogression.

Page 81 of 101

The impact of an escape event at a marine site is affected by several factors including the age,sexual maturity and the number of fish lost; the proximity to a GUM DPS river; and the geneticstrain. Devising an ITS that incorporates all of these variables is impaired by the current lack ofcage inventory and monitoring information. The shaded portion of Table 4 shows documentedaquaculture escapees that were caught in three Maine GUM DPS rivers from 1994-2002. Theother GOM DPS rivers do not have fish traps or weirs; therefore, there is limited information onthe number of aquaculture fish entering these rivers.

Table 4. Aquaculture Atlantic Salmon Caught in Weirs in Maine Rivers, in Numbers ofFish, 1994-2002 (U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee Reports, 1995-2002).

YEAR St. Croix Union Narraguagus Dennys - Pleasant Nanaguagus,(GUM DPS (GUM ii)PS (GUM t)PS Dennys, and

river) river) river) r Pleasant Total~- (GUM Di’S

~ rivers)1994 97 n/a 1 48 n/a 49

1995 14 n/a 0 4 D/a 4

1996 20 n/a I 8 21 nla 29

1997 27 n/a 0 2 n/a 2

1998 24 n/a 0 ~ n/a 1

1999 23 63 3 n/a n/a~ 3

2000 30 6 0 29 0 29,

2001 58 2 0 65 0” 65

2002 5 6 0 4 r N0 4

These data reflect the best available information to estimate the number of aquaculture fishentering the GOM DPS and other Maine rivers. However, these historical data do not representcomplete information on the total number of marine aquaculture escapees intruding into the

‘GUM DPS rivers because: 1) there is a lack of counting or interception facilities on several GUMDPS rivers,3 2) escapees are not currently marked (aquaculture escapees are currently identifiedby physical characteristics such as fin deformities, scale patterns, and body shape and size), 3)these interception facilities do not operate year-round, and 4) commercial salmon culture inMaine started several years before existing trapping/counting facilities were placed on salmon

A weir was scheduled for construction on the East Machias River in 2001. However, the weir was notinstalled, because the Town of East Macbias denied local approval for the project. The Services and the ASC arecurrently evaluating alternative locations for a weir on the East Machias River.

Page 82 of 101

rivers. An accurate count of Maine industry origin escapees is further confounded by the factthat some of the escapees detected in the GOM DPS rivers may have come from nearbyCanadian marine cages. While these data do not show the total number of marine aquacultureescapees entering the GOM DPS rivers, they can be used as an index for the number of escapeesentering the GOM DPS rivers. In view of the fact that the Services are not able to count everyescapee entering each GOM DPS river, the actual detection of escapees in a GOM DPS river atwhich there are weirs or traps, while an underestimate of opportunities for interaction, appears tobe the only viable surrogate method by which to measure incidental take.

For the reasons described above, the Services have chosen to express incidental take in terms ofthe number of aquaculture fish being detected in GOM DPS rivers with weirs or traps. From1994 through 2002, the average number of aquaculture escapees detected at the Dennys andNanaguagus River weirs was 21 per year (see Table 4 above). Based on this average and on theexpectation that the special conditions proposed by the ACOE will reduce the number ofescapees by 25% (see Effects of the Action section), the Services expect that up to 16aquaculture escapees per year will be captured at weirs in GOM DPS rivers. However, theproposed improvements in containment and the accompanying decrease in escapees caught atweirs are not expected to be fully realized for several years. In fact, the Services expect thatreductions in the number of escapees caught at weirs will not be fully achieved until 2006. Inview of the above, the Services expect that up to 21 escapees will be caught at weirs in GOMDPS rivers in 2003, 2004, and 2005; and up to 16 escapees will be caught at weirs in subsequent

- years beginning in 2006 regardless of whether a weir is currently in place or will be installed inthe future.

To accommodate the variability in escapees detected in GOM DPS rivers over time, the Servicesused a three~year rolling average of the number of fish detected at weirs or traps on GOM DPSrivers to set ineidental take levels. The term rolling average means that the average is to becalculated for the current year plus the two previous years (i.e., at year four, the ACOE would notneed to wait two more years before calculating a three-year average, but would instead averageyears four, three, and two). Thus, if the three-year (calendar year) average of U.S. industryaquaculture escapees detected at weirs in GOM DPS rivers exceeds the average number of fishexpected to be caught at weirs for that three-year time period, the anticipated level of incidentaltake will have been exceeded. This also sets an upper limit of escapees being caught in weirs foran individual year. For example, if in a single calendar year, more fish are caught at weirs thanwere expected over a three-year period, the anticipated level of incidental take will have been

• exceeded, since the three-year rolling average will have been exceeded in that one year. Table 5shows the numbers of aquaculture escapees that are expected to be caught at weirs and how thesenumbers translate to take levels. Exceeding the incidental take level authorized by this opinionwill require reinitiation of consultation, consistent with 50 CFR 402.16.~

The Services will continue to evaluate the appropriateness of this amount of take in light of any presentlyunknown advances in technology applied in the future (which could reduce escapement) or in light of the addition ofweirs/traps to more DPS rivers (which could increase the number of escapees intercepted at DPS rivers).

Page 83 of 101

B. Reasonable and Prudent Measures

• Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA requires that when an agency action is found to comply with Sectidn7(a)(2) of the ESA and the proposed action may incidentally take individuals of listed species,the Services will issue a statement specifying the impact of any incidental taking. Section 7(b)(4)also states that reasonable and prudent measures necessary to minimize impacts, and terms andconditions to implement those measures, must be provided. Only incidental taking by the federalagency or applicant that complies with the specified terms and conditions is exempted.

Table 5. Aquaculture Escapees Expected to be Caught at Weirs on GOM DPS Rivers,Showing Calculation of Incidental Take (2003-2012).

Year Max # of captured Three year Max in one year beforeescapees expected rolling average to IT is exceeded*

~ setlT2003 21 63

2004 21 63

2005 21 21 (2003-05) 63

2006 16 19 (2004-06) 58

2007 16 18 (2005-07) 53

2008 16 16 (2006-08) 48

2009 16 16 (2007-09) 48

2010 16 16 (2008-10) 48

2011 16 16 (2009-11) 48

2012 16 16 (2010-12) 48

*Tffis level can only be achieved and incidental take exemption maintained if this assumes zeroescapees are caught at weirs in the other two years used to calculate the rolling average.

The reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions are required to document theincidental take and to minimize the impact of that take on the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon.These measures and terms and conditions are non-discretionary and must be implemented inorder for the protection of Section 7(o)(2) to apply.

The Services believe that the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary andappropriate to minimize incidental take of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon. The ACOE willensure that this reasonable and prudent measure is implemented by working with the USFWS,NOAA Fisheries, the EPA, the State of Maine, and the permittees, to collect the necessaryinformation and develop procedures for the following:

Page 84 of 101

Minimize the likelihood of incidental take from the escape of aquaculture salmon,and monitor and report on the implementation of the ACOB special conditions.

C. Terms and Conditions

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the ACOB must assurecompliance with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable andprudent measure described in the previous section, and ouffine the required reporting/monitoringrequirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

1. To implement the above Reasonable and Prudent Measure, the ACOE will use itsauthority under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act to ensure that the specialconditions proposed in the project description are adhered to by each permittee.

2. To implement the above Reasonable and Prudent Measure, the ACOE will promptlynotify the Services if any permittee fails to adhere to any of the special conditions.

3. To implement the above Reasonable and Prudent Measure, the ACOB will complete anannual report and send it to the Services. The report will cover the calendar year periodand will be due by the following January 31. The purpose of the reporting is to validatethe extent and amount of take. The report will include but not be limited to thefollowing:

a) a summary of each site’s activities, including current information on speciescultivated and stocking and harvesting figures;

b) a summary of fish escapes at each site, including number of fish, description ofincident, and corrective actions taken;

c) a summary of known recoveries of aquaculture escapees and incidences of takeas defined in this opinion.

WI. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further thepurposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered andthreatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities tominimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat to helpimplement recovery plans, or to develop information.

1. The ACOE should evaluate the locations of proposed marine aquaculture sites to minimizethe risk of catastrophic fish losses, disease transfer, and interference with migration patternsof wild Atlantic salmon.

2. The ACOE should continue to work with other state and federal agencies, the aquaculture

Page 85 of 101

industry, and other interested parties to coordinate, conduct, or support research to determinemeasures that could be implemented to reduce the potential for discharge of fish fromfreshwater and marine aquaculture facilities.

3. The ACOE should work with the aquaculture industry and regulatory agencies to developBay Management Plans for the Maine industry. The plans should include, but not be limitedto:

• a concise description of the bay/area in terms of physical characteristics, history,aquaculture operations, future/potential carrying capacity, water quality problems,flushing rates, etc.

• codes of practice for current aquaculture opôrations and translation of those codes tothe specific circumstances of each bay or coastal region

• consideration of specks other than salmon if appropriate• a development plan for aquaculture in the bay• information on other activities in the bay• coordination with Canada as appropriEte

4. The ACOE should evaluate the implications for Atlantic salmon resulting from removal ofthe ice-control dam on the Narraguagus River in Cherryfield, and consider other alternativesfor ice control.

5. The ACQE should work with the Maine Department of Transportation and state and federalfisheries agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of various culvert designs on fish passage,particularly for Atlantic salmon.

6. The ACOE should work with the Services and other state and federal agencies to identify andimplement appropriate streaih restoration projects within the GOM DPS watersheds thatwould improve Atlantic salmon habitat.

In order for the Services to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects orbenefiting listed species or their habitats, the Services request notification of the implementationof any conservation recommendations.

VIII. REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal consultation for the ACOE’s proposed modification of existing permitsauthorizing the installation and maintenance of existing fish pens within the State of Maine. Inaddition to the reinitiation procedures described in this biological opinion, reinitiation of formalconsultation is required where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over theaction has been retained (or is authorized by law) and: (a) if the amount or extent of takingspecified in the ITS is exceeded; (b) if new information reveals effects of the action that mayaffect the Atlantic salmon GOM DPS in a manner or to an extent not pre’~ious1y considered;5 (c)

For example, the Services are anticipating the release of a final report by the National Academy of

Page 86 of 101

if the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the Atlanticsalmon GOM DPS that was not considered in the biological opinion; (d) if critical habitat for theAtlantic salmon GOM DPS is designated that may be affected by the identified action; or (e) if anew species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action (50 CFR402.16).

• Sciences that addresses issues such as the factors that have caused Maine’s salmon populations to decline andoptions forhelping salmon recover.

Page 87 of 101

Literature Cited

AASBRT (Anadromous Atlantic Salmon Biological Review Team). 1999. Review of the Statusof Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) ónder the U.S. Endangered Species Act.230pp.

Allen, R. 1940. Studies on the biology of the early stages of the salmon (Salmo salañ: growth inthe riverEden. J. Animal Ecol. 9(1):1-23.

Atkins, C.G. 1874~ On the salmon of eastern North America, and its artificial culture. Pages 227-335 in United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries Report of the Commissioner for1872 and 1973, part II. Washington;

Baum, E.T. 1997. Maine Atlantic Salmon - A National Treasure. Atlantic Salmon Unlimited,Hermon, Maine.

Baum, E.T. 2001. Final Report. US/Ireland Cooperative Program on Salmon AquacultureIndustry. NOAAFisheries Order No.: 43EANF000114.

Beland, K. 1984. Strategic plan for management of Atlantic salmon in the state of Maine.Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, Bangor, Maine.

Beland, K. and K. Friedland. 1997. Estimating freshwater and marine survival for Atlanticsalmon cohorts spawned in 1989-1991, Narraguagus River, Maine. American FisheriesSociety Annual Meeting, Monterey, California.

Belle, S. Letter to ACOE. November 7, 2002.

Bergan, P.1., D. Gausen and L.P. Hansen. 1991. Attempts to reduce the impact of reared Atlanticsalmon on wild in Norway. Aquaculture. 98: 3 19-324.

Bêrst, A.H. and R. Simon. 1981. Introduction to the proceedings of the 1980 Stock ConceptInternational Symposium (STOCS). Can. 3. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38(12):1457-1458.

Bley, P.W. 1987. Age, growth, and mortality of juvenile Atlantic salmon in streams: a review.Biological Report 87(4). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Page 88 of 101

Bley, P.W. and J.R. Moring. 1988. Freshwater and ocean survival of Atlantic salmon andsteelhead: a synopsis. Biological Report 88(9). Maine Cooperative Fish and WildlifeResearch Unit, Orono.

Can, J.M., J.M. Anderson, F.G. Whoriskey and T. Dilworth. 1997. The occurrence and spawningof cultured Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in a Canadian river. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54:1064-1073.

Clifford, S.L., P. McGinnity and A. Ferguson. 1998. Genetic changes in an Atlantic salmonpopulation resulting from escaped juvenile farm salmon. 3. Fish Bio. 52(1):118-127.

Cook, I. T., M.A. McNiven, G.F. Richardson and A.M. Sutterlin. 2000. Growth rate, bodycomposition and feed digestibility! conversion of growth-enhanced transgenic Atlanticsalmon (Salmo solar).

Cotter, D., V. O’Donovan, N. O’Maoileidigh, G.Rogan, N. Roche and N.P. Wilkins. 2000. Anevaluation of the use of triploid Atlantic salmon in minimizing the impact of escapedfarmed salmon on wild populations. Aquaculture 186: 61-75.

Crossman, E. 3. 1991. Introduced freshwater fishes: A review of the North American perspectivewith emphasis on Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:46-57.

Crozier, W.W. 1993. Evidence of genetic interaction between escaped farmed salmon and wildAtlantic salmon (Salmo salarL.) in a Northern Irish river. Aquaculture 113:19-29.

Daniel, D.S., J.G. Trial and J.G. Stanley. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmentalrequirements of coastal fish and invertebrates (North Atlantic): Atlantic salmon.USFWS!OBS-82!l 1.2, TR EL-82-4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers.

DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 1999. Interaction between wild and farmed Atlanticsalmon in the Maritime Provinces. DFO Maritimes Regional Habitat Status Report99/1E.

Dutil, J.-D. and J.-M. Coutu. 1988. Early marine life of Atlantic salmon, Sabno solar, postsmoltsin the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Fish. Bull. 86(2): 197-211.

Einum, S. and IA. Fleming. 1997. Genetic divergence and interactions in the wild amongnative, farmed and hybrid Atlantic salmon. J. Fish Biol. 50: 634-651.

Elliot, J.M. 1991. Tolerance and resistance to thermal stress in juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmosolar. Fresh. Biol. 25:61-70.

Page 89 of 101

Farmer, G.J., D. Ashfield and J.A. Ritter. 1977. Seawater acclimation and parr-smolttransformation of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Freshwater and AnadromousDivision, Resourc. Branch, Fish. Mar. Serv., Tech. Rep. Sen. MAR/T-77-3

Fausch, K.D. 1988. Tests of Competition between native and introduced salmonids in streams:what have we learned? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45(12):2238-2246.

Fausch, K.D. 1998, Interspecific competition and juvenile Atlantic salmon: on testing effçctsand evaluating the evidence across scales. Can. 1. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(S1):218-231.

Fausch, K.D. and R.J. White. 1986. Competition among juveniles of coho salmon, brook trout,and brown trout in a laboratory stream, and implication for Great Lakes tributaries.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115(3): 363-38 1.

Finaly, D., J.F. Kocik, G. Mackey, T.F. Sheehan and L. Sochasky. 2002. Stocking Maxine-RearedAdult Atlantic Salmon in Eastern Maine: A Progress Report for Year 2, Annual Report ofthe U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee: Report No 14- 2001 Activities, AnnualReport 2002/14.

Fleming, l.A., K. Hindar, TB. Mjelnerød, B.Jonsson, T.Balstad and A.Lamberg. 2000. Lifetimesuccess and interactions of farm salmon invading a native population. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.B 267, 1517-1523.

Fleming, l.A and S. Einum. 1997. Experimental tests of genetic divergence of farmed from wildAtlantic salmon due to domestication. ICES 1. Mar. Sci. 54: 1051-1063.

Fraser, P.1. 1987. Atlantic salmon, Salmo salarL., feed in Scottish coastal waters. AquacultureFish. Manage. 18(2):243-247..

Gibson, Ri. 1981. Interactions between coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar), brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis), and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) atthe juvenile fluviatile stages. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1029: l66p.

Grant, W. Stewart (editor). 1997. Genetic effects of straying of non-native hatchery fish intonatural populations: Proceedingsof the Workshop. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAATech. Memo. NOAA Fisheries-NWFSC-30, 130 p.

Gross, M. R. 1998. One species with two biologies: Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the wildand in aquaculture. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(Suppl. 1): 131-144.

GunnerØd, T.B., N.A. Hvidsten and T.G. Heggberget. 1988. Open sea releases of Atlantic salmonsmolts, Salmo salar, in central Norway, 1973-83. Can. 1. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45(8):1340-1345.

Page 90 of 101

Hansen, L.P. and P. Pethon. 1985. The food of Atlantic salmon; Salmo salar L., caught by long-line in northern Norwegian waters. J. Fish Biol.. 26:553-562.

Harwood, A. J., N. B. Metcalfe, J.D. Armstrong and S. W:Griffiths. 2001. Spatial and temporaleffects of interspecific competition between Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and browntrout (Salmo trutta) in winter. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58(6):1133-1140.

Hearn, W.E. 1987. Interspecific competition and habitat segregation among stream-dwellingtrout and salmon: a review. Fisheries 12(5):24-21.

Heggberget, Tor G., F. Okiand and O.Ugedal. 1993. Distribution and migratory behavior of adultwild and farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) during return migration. Aquaculture.118: 73-83.

Heggenes, J., J.L. Bagliniere and R.A. Cunjalc. 1999. Spatial niche variability for young Atlanticsalmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (S. trutta) in heterogeneous streams. Ecol.Freshwat. Fish 8(l):1-21

Hesthagen, T. 1988. Movements of brown trout, Salmo trutta , and juvenile Atlantic salmon,Salmo salar, in a coastal stream in northern Norway. J. Fish Biol. 32(5):639-653.

Hindar, K., N. Ryman and F. Utter. 1991. Genetic effects of cultured fish on natural fishpopulations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48:945-957.

Hislop, J.R.G. and R.G.J. Shelton. 1993. Marine predators and prey of Atlantic salmon (Salmosalar L.)~ Pages 104-118 in D. Mills, editor. Salmon in the sea and new enhancementstrategies. Fishing News Books, Oxford.

Hislop, LR.G. and A.F. Youngson. 1984. A note on the stomach contents of salmon caught bylongline north of the Faroe Island in March 1983. ICES C.M. 19841M: 17.

Hoar, W. S. 1976. Smolt transformation: evaluation, behavior, and physiology. 3. Fish. Res.Board of Canada. 33(5):1233-1252.

Hvidsten, N.A. and R.A. Lund. 1988. Predation on hatchery-reared and wild smolts of Atlanticsalmon, Salmo salarL., in the estuary of River Orkia, Norway. 3. Fish Biol. 33(1): 121-126.

Hvidsten, N.A. and P.1. Møkkelgjerd. 1987. Predation on salmon smolts, Salmo salar L., in theestuary of the River Surna, Norway. 3. Fish Biol. 30:273-280.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). 2002. Hatchery surpluses in the Pacific.Northwest. Fisheries 27(12):16-27.

Page9lof 101

Jacobsen, J.A. and B. Gaard. 1997. Open-ocean infestation by salmon lice. (Lepeophtheirussalmonis): comparison of wild and escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.).ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54: 1113-1119.

Johnstone, R. 1998. The pros and cons of using sterile salmon in aquaculture. L.P. Hansen, M.LWindsor and A.F. Youngson (Eds). Interactions between salmon culture and wild stocksof Atlantic salmon. Report of an ICES/NASCO symposium, 18-22 April 1997. Bath,England. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54.

Jotisson, B. 1997. A review of ecological and behavioral interactions between cultured and wildAtlantic salmon. ICES J. Mar. ScL54, 1031-1039.

Jonsson, B., N. Jonsson and L.P. Hansen. 1991. Differences in life history and migratorybehavior bptween wild and hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon in nature. Aquaculture 98:69-78.

Jutila, B. and J. Toivonen. 1985. Food composition of salmon post-smolts (Salmo salar L.) in theNorthern part of the Gulf of Bothnia. ICES C.M. 19851M:21.

Kaelin, J. Letter to ACOE. November 8, 2002.

Kalleberg, H. 1958. Observations in a stream tank of territoriality and competition in juvenilesalmon and trout (Salmo salar L. and £ trutta L.): Reportllnstitute of Fresh-WaterResearch, Drottningholm 39:55-98.

Kapuscinski, A.R. and E.M. Hallerman. 1990. Transgenic Fishes. American Fisheries Societyposition statement. Fisheries 15(4) :2-5.

Kendall, W.C. 1935. The fishes of New England: the salmon family. Part 2 - the salmons.Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History: monographs on the natural history ofNew England. Vol. 9(1). Boston, Massachusetts.

Kennedy, 0. J. A. and C. D. Strange. 1986. The effects of intra- and inter-specific competition onthe distribution of stocked juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in relation to depthand gradient in an upland trout, Salmo trutta L., stream. J. Fish Biol. 29(2):199-214.

Kocik, J.F., K.F. Beland and T.F. Sheehan. 1999. Atlantic salmon overwinter survival and smoltproduction in the Narraguagus River. 0-99-NEC-i. Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

LWRC (Land and Water Resources Council). 1999. Land and Water Resources Council 1998Annual Progress.Report Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers;Annual Progress Report.

Page92of 101

Lundqvist, H. 1980. Influence of photoperiod on growth of Baltic salmon pan (Sauna salar L.)with specific reference to the effect of precocious sexual maturation. Can. I. Zool.58(5):940-944.

Lura, H. and H. Saegrov. 1991. Documentation of successful spawning of escaped farmed femaleAtlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in Norwegian rivers. Aquaculture 98:151-159.

Lutz, 0. C. 2000. Genetics and Breeding- Transgenic Fish: Recent Reports. AquacultureMagazine. JanuarylFebruary:69-71.

Mackey, 0. and B. J. Atkinson. 2003. Summary of emergent fry trapping on the Dennys River in2001 and 2002: evaluation of reproductive success by pen-reared adult Atlantic salmon.Semi-Annual Project Report (NOAA Grant NA17FL1 157). Appendix 2.

Mackey, G. and N. Brown. 2003. Estimation of gamete viability and fecundity of river-specificmarine net pen reared Atlantic salmon in Maine. Semi-Annual Project Report (NOAAGrant NA17FL1 157). Appendix 3.

Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission. Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven MaineRivers, 2000 Annual Progress Report. Http:f/www.state.me.us/asa.

Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.June 2002. Memorandum of Agreement regarding fisheries management activities incertain Maine rivers.

Maine Atlantic Salmon Task Force. 1997. Atlantic salmon conservation plan for seven Mainerivers (MASCP). Augusta, Maine.

Maine Atlantic Salmon Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 2000. Draft management plan forthe Pleasant River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Orland, Maine.

Maine State Planning Office (MSPO). 2001. Downeast salmon rivers water use managementplan, Pleasant and Narraguagus Rivers, Mopang Stream. Augusta, Maine.

McGinnity, P., C. Stone, 3. B. Taggert, D. Cooke, D. Cotter, R. Hynes, C. McCamley, T. Cross,and A. Ferguson. 1997. Genetic impact of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salarL.) on native populations: use of DNA profiling to assess freshwater performance of wild,farmed, and hybrid progeny in a natural river environment. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54: 998-ioos.

McVicar, A. H. 1997. Disease and parasite implications of the coexistence of wild and culturedAtlantic salmon populations. ICES 3. Mar. Sci. 54: 1093-1103.

Mills, D. H. 1964. The ecology of young stages of Atlantic salmon in the River Bran, Rosshire.Dept. Agric. Fish. Of Scotland, Freshwater Salmon Fish. Res.

Page 93 of 101

Montevecchi, W.A., D.K. Cairns and V.L. Birt. 1988. Migration of postsmolt Atlantic salmon,Salmo salar L., off northeastern Newfoundland, as inferred by tag recoveries in a seabirdcolony. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45(3):568-571.

Mork, Jane. 1991. One-generation effects of farmed fish immigration on the geneticdifferentiation of wild Atlantic salmon in Norway. Aquaculture. 98: 267-276.

NASCO (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization). 1993. Impacts of salmonaquaculture. CNL(93)29.

NASCO. 2003. Draft Report of the Meeting of the North Atlantic Salmon Farming Industry andNASCO Liaison Group. SLG (03)6.

National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Interim Report from the Committee on AtlanticSalmon in Maine. Genetic Status of Atlantic Salmon in Maine. National Academy Press.Washington, D.C.

Nielsen, J.L. 1998. Population genetics and the conservation and management of Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(1):145-152.

NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Financial Assistance for Researchand Development Projects to Strengthen and Develop the U.S. Fishing Industry. FederalRegister 67(93): 34427-34434.

Nylufld, A., A.M. Kvenseth, B. Krossey and K.Hodneland. 1997. Replication of the infectioussalmon anaemia virus (ISAV) in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus inykiss (Walbaum). J. FishDiseases 20:275-279.

O’Flynn, F.M., S.A. McGeachy, G.W. Friars, T.J. Benfey and J.K. Bailey. 1997. Comparisons ofcultured triploid and diploid Atlantic salmon (Salmosalar L.). ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54(6):1160-1165.

Peterson, R.H. 1978. Physical characteristics of Atlantic salmon spawning gravel in some NewBrunswick, Canada streams. Can. Fish. Man. Serv. Tech. Rep~ No. 785:1-28.

Randall, R.G. 1982. Emergence, population densities, and growth of salmon and trout fry in twoNew Brunswick streams. Can. 3. Zool. 60(10):2239-2244.

Raynard, R.S, A.G. Murray and A.Gregory. 2001. Infectious salmon anemia virus in wild fishfrom Scotland. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 46:93-100.

Reddin, D.G. 1985. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) on and east of the Grand Bank. 3. NorthwestAtl. Fish. Soc. 6(2):157-164.

• Page94of 101

Ruggles, C.P. 1980. A review of downstream migration of Atlantic salmon. Canadian TechnicalReport of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Freshwater and Anadromous DivisionResearch Branch, Department of Fisheries and Ocean, Halifax.

Saegrov, H., K. Hindar, S. Kalas and H. Lura. 1997. Escaped farmed Atlantic salmon replacethe original salmon stock in the River Vosso, western Norway. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54:1166-1172.

Saunders, R.L. 1991. Potential interactions between cultured and wild Atlantic salmon.Aquaculture 98:51-60.

Schaffer, W.M. and P.F. Elson. 1975. The adaptive significance of variations in life history.among local populations of Atlantic salmon. Ecology 56:577-590.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Atlantic salmon. Pages 192-197 in Freshwater Fishes ofCanada (Bulletin 184). Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Scientific Information andPublications Branch, Ottawa.

Sheela, S.G., T.J. Pandian and S. Mathaven. 1999. Electroporatic transfer, stable integration,expression and transmission of pZpssypGH and pZpssrtGH in Indian catfish,Heteropneustesfossilis (Bloc/i). Aquaculture Research 30(4): 233-248.

Stolte, L. 1981. The forgotten salmon of the Merrimack. Department of the Interior, NortheastRegion, Washington, D.C.

Sutterlin, A.M. and C. Collier. 1991. Some observations on the commercial use of triploidrainbow trout and Atlantic salmon in Newfoundland, Canada. Proceedings of the AtlanticCanada workshop on methods for the production of non-maturing salmonids: February19-21, 1991. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1789: 89-96.

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 1995. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic salmonassessment committee report No. 7- 1994 Activities. 1995/7. Turner Falls, Massachusetts.

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 1996. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic salmonassessment committee report No.8-1995 Activities. 1996/8. Nashua, New Hampshire.

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 1997. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic salmonassessment committee: Report No.9-1996 Activities. 1997/9. Hadley, Massachusetts.

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 1998. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic salmonassessment committee: Report No. 10- 1997 Activities. 1998/10. Hadley, Massachussetts.

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 1999. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic salmonassessment conmiittee: Report No. 11- 1998 Activities. 1999/11. Gloucester,Massachusetts.

Page 95 of 101

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 2000. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic salmonassessmentcommittee: Report No. 124999 Activities. 2000/12. Gloucester,Massachusetts.

U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 2001. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic salmonassessment committee: Report No. 13-2000 Activities. 2001/13. Nashua, NewHampshire.

•U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee. 2002. Annual Report of the U.S. Atlantic salmonassessment committee: Report No. 14- 2001 Activities. 2002/14. Concord, NewHampshire.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1989. Final environmental impact statement 1989-2021: restoration of Atlantic salmon to New England rivers. Department of the Interior,

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NewtonComer, MA.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NOAA Fisheries (National Marine FisheriesService). 2001. Biological Opinion to the Environmental Protection Agency on thedelegation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program to theState of Maine and its effects on the endangered Atlantic salmon.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NOAA Fisheries (National Marine FisheriesService). 2000. Endangered and threatened species; final endangered status for a distinctpopulation segment of anadromous Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the Gulf of Maine.Federal Register 65 (223): 69459-69483.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NOAA Fisheries (National Marine FisheriesService). 1999. Endangered and Threatened Species; proposed endangered status for adistinct population segment of anadromous Atlantic salmon (S almo salar) in the Gulf ofMaine. Federal Register 64 (221): 62627-62641.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NOAA Fisheries (National Marine FisheriesService). 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of proposedrule to list a distinct population segment of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) as Threatened.Federal Register 62 (243): 66325-66338.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NOAA Fisheries (National Marine FisheriesService). 1995. Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed threatened status for adistinct population segment of Anadromous Atlantic salmon (S almo salar) in sevenMaine rivers. Federal Register 60 (189): 50530-50539.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NOAA Fisheries (National Marine FisheriesService). 1995. Status Review for Anadromous Atlantic salmon in the United States.

Page 96 of 101

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NOAA Fisheries (National Marine FisheriesService). 1986. 50 CFR Part 402, Interagency Cooperation- Endangered Specks Act of1973, as Amended; Final Rule. Federal Register 51(106): 19926-19963.

Utter, F.M. 1981. Biological criteria for definition of species and distinct intraspecificpopulations of anadromous salmonids under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973.Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38(12):1626-1635.

Utter, F.M., K. Hindar and N. Ryman. 1993. Genetic effects of aquaculture on natural salmonidpopulations. Pages 144-165 in K. Heen, R.L. Monahan, and F. Utter, editors. Salmonaquaculture. Fishing News Books, Oxford.

Verspoor, E. 1997. Genetic diversity among Atlantic salmon (Salmc’ salar L.) populations. ICES3. Mar. Sci. 54:965-973.

Volpe, J.P., B.R. Anholt and B.W. Gliclcman. 2001. Competition among juvenile Atlanticsalmon (Salino salar) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): relevance to invasionpotential in British Columbia. Can. 3. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 197-207.

Volpe, J.P., E.B. Taylor, D.W. Rimmer and B.W. Glickman. 2000. Evidence of naturalreprdduction of aquaculture-escaped Atlantic salmon in a coastal British Columbia river.Cons. Biol. 14(3):899-903.

Webb, J.H., A.F. Youngson, C.E. Thompson, D.W. Hay, .M.J. Donagy and I.S. McLaren. 1993.Spawning of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in western and northernScottish rivers: egg deposition by females. Aquat. Fish Manage. 24(5):663-670.

Whoriskey, Fred. A Bitter, Bitter, Blow. Atlantic Salmon Journal. Winter 1999. pp. 12-14.

Windsor, M.L. and P. Hutchinson. 1990. The potential interactions between salmon aquacultureand the wild stocks - a review. Fish. Res. 10:163-176.

Youngson, A.F. andE. Verspoor. 1998. Interactions between wild and introduced Atlanticsalmon (Salmo salar). Can. 3. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(supp. 0:153-160.

Youngson, A.F., 3.H. Webb, C.E. Thompson and 0. Knox. 1993. Spawning of escaped farmedAtlantic salmon (Salmo salañ: Hybridization of females with brown trout. Can. 3. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 50(9):1986-1990.

Page 97 of 101

Attachment 1

Atlantic Salmon Microsateflite Analysis Protocol

This protocol will be used to determine which Atlantic salmon qan be used for breeding andproduction stock under the State of Maine General Permit for Aquaculture Facilities and forArmy Corps of Engineers permits prohibiting use of non-North American strain salmon. Theprotocol describes a standardized procedure to classify fish as either North American or non-North American stock and is largely based on the procedures used by King et al. (2001). Thepermittee will be responsible for providing genotype data to the Services for data analysis andfish classification as described herein.

DNA isolation

Genomic DNA will be isolated from tissue, fin clip or scale samples from each fish intended foruse as brood~tock employing either a commercially-available DNA extraction, such as PureGene(Gentrâ Systems) or DNeasy tissue kit (Qiagen Inc.) or a phenollchloroform based extractionsystem such as used in Patton et al. (1997), or, particularly for scales, a Chelex-resin basedprotocol such as given in King a’ al. (2001). Quality and quantity of DNA will be visualized on0.8% agarose gels, which will include a commercially-available DNAstandard for quantificationand size determination.

Microsatellite analysis

The loci used to classify brood fish as either North American or non-North American stock willbe: Ssa85, Ssal7l, Ssa197, and Ssa202 (O’Reilly a’ al. 1996); SSOSL311 and 5S0SL438(Slettan et al. 1995, 1996) and Ssa289 (McConnel et al. 1995).

PCR conditions for the selected loci will essentially follow that of King et al. (2001) and Pattonet al. (1997), with possible minor modifications for optimization of products of individual loci.The loci will be labeled with the dyes, Ned, Hex, and 6-Pam by ABI or any other comparablecommercial supplier of labeled oligonucleotides. The size standard to be used will be 400 lIDRox (ABI). Microsatellite analysis will be performed using the ABI 3100 autosequencer or anyother ccSmmercial system providing equivalent results. Fragment analysis will be accomplishedusing a combination of GENESCAN and GENOTYPER software packages from ABI, or anyother commercial system providing equivalent results. The permittee will present electronic datatables from the GENOTYPER program to the Services in spreadsheet format in Excel or anyother commercially-available program providing equivalent results that allow the data to beeasily reformatted for subsequent analyses. The output files (gel tracings) from GENESCAN andGENOTYPER will also be provided by the permittee at the same time to help the Services assure•data quality. Data provided must be complete at all loci for all fish.

Page 98 of 101

Size verification of allelic products

To ensure accurate sizing of allelic products from the aquaculture fish relative to the designationsdeveloped in the King laboratory (see King et al. 2001), Dr. King will provide samples for use ascontrols. The Services will provide an adequate supply of DNA samples from representative fishof lmown genotypes to enable calibration of equipment throughout the term of the controllinglicense conditions. Control samples will be used at the inception of the study to set theautomated allele designation/binning parameters of the GENOTYPER software so that allsubsequent calls made for aquaculture fish will be automatically sized relative to the standardsoriginally provided by Dr. King.

Genetic screening

Identification of North American aquaculture stock will be based on assignment tests performedwith the software GeneClass, which can be downloaded athttp:llwww.montvellier.inra.fr/URLB/geneclass/geneclass.html. Aquaculture fish will becompared to two reference groups. The first group will be comprised of samples from NorthAmerica, including samples from Maine (Dennys, Ducktrap, East Macbias, Macbias,Narraguagus, Penobscot mainstem, Pleasant, Sheepscot), Canada (Conne, Gold, Gander,Michaels, Miramichi, Saguenay, Sand Hill, St. Jean, St. John, Stewiacke) and aquaculture strainsderived from St. John and Penobscot populations. The second group will be comprised of non-North American samples from Iceland (Ellidaar, Vesturdalsa), Norway (Lone, Vosso), Finland(Tornionjoki), Scotland (Shin, Nith), Ireland (Spaddagh, Blackwater), and Spain (Eo, Esva,Bidasoa, Sella); and the Landcatch aquaculture strain. Genetic data for the two reference groupsare available upon request from the Northeast Fishery Center of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, (570) 726-4247.

The likelihood for assigning any given fish to each reference population will be calculated usingthe program GeneClass. If the ratio of the likelihood scores indicates that North American originis at least twice as likely as non-North American origin, that fish will be considered to be ofNorth American origin. All other fish will be classified as non-North American stock. TheServices will promptly report the results to the permittee.

Literature Cited -

King, T.L., S.T. Kalinowski, W.B. Schill, A.P. Spidle and B.A. Lubinski. 2001. Populationstructure of Atlantic salmon (Salmo Salar U: a range wide perspective frommicrosatellite DNA variation. Molecular Ecology 10: 807-821.

McConnel, Stewart K., Patrick O’Reilly, Lorraine Hamilton, Jonathan M. Wright and PaulBentzen. 1995. Polymorphic microsatellite loci from Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar):genetic differentiation of North American and European populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci52: 1863-1872.

Page99of 101

O’Reilly, Patrick T., Lorraine C. Hamilton, Stewart K. McConnell and Jonathon M. Wright.1996. Rapid analysis of genetic variation in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) by PCRmultiplexing of dinucleotide and tetranucleotide microsatellites. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.. Sci.53: 2292-2298.

Patton, J.C., B.J. Gallaway, R.G. Fechhelm and M.A. Cronin. 1997. Genetic variation ofmicrosatellite and mitochondrial DNA markers in broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus) inthe Colville and Safavanirktok rivers in northern Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54(7):1549-1556.

Slettan, A., I. Olsaker and 0. Lie. 1995. Atlantic salmon, Salnzo salar, microsatellites at theSSOSL25, SSOSL85, SSOSL311, SSOSL417 loci. Animal Genetics 26: 281-282.

Slettan, A., I. Olsaker and 0. Lie. 1996. Polymorphic Atlantic salmon, (Salmo salarL.),microsatellites at the SS05L438, 5S0SL429, and S50SL444 loci. Animal Genetics 27:57-58.

Page 100 of 101

Attachment 2Escape Reporting Form

The permittee shall report any known or suspected escape of 50 or more adult fish at two kg or larger,within 24 hours.

Aquaculture Permit No: _________________________________

Name of Permit Holder: ___________________________________

Accident site/location: _____________________________________

Date of occurrence: _____________________________________

Time of occurrence: _____________________________________

Species! Strain of Fish: _________________________________

Average Size/Weight/Age of Fish Lost (if more than one year class, provide separate details):

Number of cages on site: __________________________________

Number of cages subject to loss: ______________________________

Number of fish lost: _____________________________________

Medication profile:

Please describe the circumstances of the escape incident:

Please describe any recapture attempts:

Submitted by:

Signature Tide

Date: ______________________________________

FAX to each of the following offices:USFWS, 207-827-6099; NOAA Fisheries, 207-866-7342; ACOE, 207-623-8206

Page 101 of 101

construction! operations division chief, regulatory branch ...concord, massachusetts 01742-2751 ref:...

Documents